Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-05-26 Council Agenda Packet
Corcoran City Council Agenda May 26, 2022 - 7:00 pm 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Agenda Approval 4.Commission Representatives* 5.Open Forum – Public Comment Opportunity 6.Presentations/Recognitions 7.Consent Agenda a.Staff Memo on Minutes of the April 14, and May 12, 26, 2022 Council Work Session Meetings* b.Staff Memo on Minutes of the April 14, 28, and May 12, 26, 2022 Council Meetings* c.Financial Claims* d.Accepting Donation for Parks and Recreation Programs* e.City Center Drive and 79th Place – Accept Plans and Authorize Bid* f.Ditzer CUP for Detached Garage* g.Pioneer Trail (HWY 55) Business Park EAW Notice of Decision* h.Kariniemi Meadows Preliminary Plat and Variance* i.Corcoran Farms Business Park Order EAW Distribution* 8.Planning Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.Zewde Subdivision Preliminary Plat for FIRA and Variance* b.Cook Lake Highlands – Breaking out SIPA or DA* c.Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition PUD Amendment Setback* d.Horseshoe Bend Feasibility Report* e.Garages Too Final Plat* f.Pulte Walcott Glenn Preliminary Plat, PUD, Rezoning* g.Protech Auto Sketch Plan* h.NE District Plan and Design Guidelines Update Standards* 9.Unfinished Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.NE Corcoran Water Supply Update* b.Hackamore Road Project Update* 10.New Business – Public Comment Opportunity a.Ravinia Encroachment Agreement* b.Potential Sale of City Land* 11.Staff Reports a.Active Planning Applications* 12.Closed Session – Health and Medical Data 13.2022 City Council Schedule* 14.Adjournment *Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by the entrance . The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City website at www.corcoranmn.gov. HYBRID MEETING OPTION AVAILABLE The public is invited to attend the regular Council meetings at City Hall. Meeting Via Telephone/Other Electronic Means Call-in Instructions: +1 312 626 6799 US Enter Meeting ID: 891 4313 2432 Press *9 to speak during the Public Comment Sections in the meeting. Video Link and Instructions: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89143132432 visit http://www.zoom.us and enter Meeting ID: 891 4313 2432 Participants can utilize the Raise Hand function to be recognized to speak during the Public Comment sections in the meeting. Participant video feeds will be muted. In-person comments will be received first, with the hybrid electronic means option following. For more information on options to provide public comment visit: www.corcoranmn.gov STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 4. Council Meeting: May 26, 2022 Prepared By: Michelle Friedrich Topic: Commission Representatives Action Required: None – Informational Summary: The advisory commission representatives for the May 26th Council meeting are as follows: • Planning Commission: Corrine Brummond • Parks and Trails Commission: Tom Anderson Financial/Budget: N/A Council Action: N/A Attachments: N/A STAFF REPORT A g end a Item : 7a. Counc il Meeting: May 26, 2022 Prepared By : Michelle Friedrich Topic : Draft Council Work Session Minutes Action Required: Informational Su m m ar y : Draft work session Minutes of the April 14, May 12, and May 26, 2022 meetings will be provided to Councilmembers at the June 9 Council meeting. STAFF REPORT Agenda Item : 7b . Counc il Meeting: May 26, 2022 Prepared By : Michelle Friedrich Topic : Draft Council Minutes Action Required: Informational Su m m ar y : Draft Minutes of the April 14, April 28, May 12, and May 26 Council regular meetings will be provided to Councilmembers at the June 9 Council meeting. Agenda Item 7c. Council Meeting Date:5/26/2022 Prepared By:Maggie Ung Amount Project name $0.00 -$ $283,728.71 283,728.71$ 115,778.79$ 399,507.50$ Date Paid to Amount Description 5/5/2022 Farmer's Bank 15.00$ ACH FILE FEE 5/5/2022 ADP 87,100.33$ Net Payroll and Taxes 5/6/2022 Optum Bank 3,612.94$ Employee HSA 5/6/2022 MN PERA 18,803.65$ Pension Plan 5/9/2022 RevTrak 0.52$ Chargeback 5/9/2022 RevTrak 19.95$ Chargeback 5/9/2022 RevTrak 820.81$ Credit Card Fee 5/9/2022 Invoice Cloud 892.64$ Credit Card Fee 5/9/2022 State of MN - Empower 4,512.95$ Employee STD and LTD Total 115,778.79$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR APPROVAL Auto Deductions / Electronic Fund Transfer / Other Disbursements ALL OTHER FINANCIAL CLAIMS Check Register (See attached Check Detail Registers) Total Checks Total of Auto Deductions Total Total Fund #500 = (See attached Payments Detail) FINANCIAL CLAIMS CHECK RANGE FUND #500 ESCROW CLAIMS Paid to SEE THE REGISTER FOR #500 CLAIMS CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 1/8Page: 05/19/2022 02:36 PM User: mung DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 05/13/2022 - 05/26/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32212 32212490.78 05/26/229933956PW - SUPPLIES - GRINDER/DEWALT BOLACME TOOLS05/10/22100-43100-50210 3221230.58 05/26/229952406PW SUPPLIES - 1/2 DR 15/16IN 6PT DACME TOOLS05/16/22100-43100-50210 521.36 Total For Check 32212 Check 32213 3221363.05 05/26/221617K-FDL6-HL1JCITY HALL SUPPLIES - SELF SEALING AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES05/08/22100-41900-50210 32213855.90 05/26/2214CR-DD3V-WFYTIT - IP DESK PHONEAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES05/06/22100-41920-50210 32213239.98 05/26/22147L-JVDQ-F7XDIT - DUAL MONITOR STANDAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES05/05/22100-41920-50210 3221315.16 05/26/221RV1-4FMQ-67MKPD PHONE ERGO ACCESSORYAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES05/11/22100-42100-50200 32213377.64 05/26/221TK9-CJLQ-HGLVPD SUPPLIES - DISPOSABLE GLOVES/HAAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES05/08/22100-42100-50210 1,551.73 Total For Check 32213 Check 32214 3221430,985.00 05/26/22INUS071747FOTOKITE SIGMA COMMAND TABLET/MOBIAXON ENTERPRISE, INC.05/03/22416-42100-50210 30,985.00 Total For Check 32214 Check 32215 322152,026.54 05/26/222041409UNLEADED 87 BEAUDRY OIL COMPANY03/31/22100-42100-50212 322154,014.48 05/26/222058858#2 DYED KODIAK B20BEAUDRY OIL COMPANY05/03/22100-43100-50212 6,041.02 Total For Check 32215 Check 32216 322163,052.46 05/26/2215405509-00WAND HARNESS/12V ELEC HOSE BROCK WHITE COMPANY LLC04/27/22100-43121-50224 3,052.46 Total For Check 32216 Check 32217 32217780.84 05/26/2204292022PW GAS BILLCENTERPOINT ENERGY 04/29/22100-45200-50381 780.84 Total For Check 32217 Check 32218 3221816.80 05/26/2205-2022GAS BILL 8000014143-4CENTERPOINT ENERGY 05/05/22100-41900-50380 32218124.83 05/26/2205-2022GAS BILL 8000014143-4CENTERPOINT ENERGY 05/05/22100-45200-50380 141.63 Total For Check 32218 Check 32219 32219139.16 05/26/2204282022PW LAND LINECENTURY LINK04/28/22100-45200-50321 139.16 Total For Check 32219 Check 32220 32220109.21 05/26/224118384586CITY HALL RUGSCINTAS - 47005/04/22100-41900-50400 3222074.73 05/26/224118384467PW - CRT BLUECINTAS - 47005/04/22100-43100-50400 3222081.77 05/26/224119131107PW LG BATH TOWELSCINTAS - 47005/11/22100-43100-50400 32220111.88 05/26/224119131031PW - TOWELS/CRT CABINETCINTAS - 47005/11/22100-43100-50400 3222015.10 05/26/224119131069PW - MICROFIBER WIPECINTAS - 47005/11/22100-43100-50400 32220187.15 05/26/224118384670PW - UNIFORMSCINTAS - 47005/04/22100-43100-50417 32220187.15 05/26/224119131205PW UNIFORMSCINTAS - 47005/11/22100-43100-50417 766.99 Total For Check 32220 Check 32221 3222120,993.10 05/26/2221284WATER USAGE 2ND QUARTER 2022CITY OF MAPLE GROVE03/31/22601-49400-50311 20,993.10 Total For Check 32221 Check 32222 32222112.32 05/26/22146456788LAND LINECOMCAST- 90294333605/15/22100-41900-50321 32222112.29 05/26/22146456788LAND LINECOMCAST- 90294333605/15/22100-42100-50321 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 2/8Page: 05/19/2022 02:36 PM User: mung DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 05/13/2022 - 05/26/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32222 32222112.29 05/26/22146456788LAND LINECOMCAST- 90294333605/15/22100-43100-50321 336.90 Total For Check 32222 Check 32223 32223885.00 05/26/22327606AGREEMENT MANAGED BACKUPCOMPUTER INTEGRATION TECH05/13/22100-41920-50300 322234,400.25 05/26/22328096AGREEMENT MANAGED SERVICESCOMPUTER INTEGRATION TECH05/13/22100-41920-50300 322233,318.00 05/26/22327117IT SUPPORT SERVICESCOMPUTER INTEGRATION TECH04/30/22100-41920-50300 8,603.25 Total For Check 32223 Check 32224 32224250.00 05/26/2205132022ZOOM COUNCIL MEETING ANNUAL SUBSCRCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/13/22100-00000-15500 3222467.04 05/26/2205132022-1ZOOM-COUNCIL WORKSESSION SUBSCRIPTCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/13/22100-00000-15500 32224300.00 05/26/2205132022ZOOM COUNCIL MEETING ANNUAL SUBSCRCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/13/22100-41110-50210 3222480.45 05/26/2205132022-1ZOOM-COUNCIL WORKSESSION SUBSCRIPTCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/13/22100-41110-50210 32224180.00 05/26/2263676565537FIRST RESPONDERS LUNCHEONI-94 WEST CHAMBER04/24/22100-41900-50210 3222458.00 05/26/2205172022SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION-PLANNECREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/17/22100-41910-50207 32224314.59 05/26/221C7LBRGPD-YEALINK HEADSETCDW GOVERNMENT05/11/22100-41920-50210 3222410.74 05/26/2205022022TARGET - PHILIPS USB-C ADAPTER CABCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/02/22100-41920-50221 32224121.97 05/26/2205092022JERSEY MIKE- POLICE DEPT MEETINGCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/09/22100-42100-50207 3222466.10 05/26/2204242022-3HOMETOWN PIZZA-FOOD FOR RESERVE MECREDIT CARD PURCHASES04/24/22100-42100-50209 3222440.84 05/26/2205112022-1MENARDS-LOCK BARREL END COUPLERCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/11/22100-42100-50210 32224(40.84)05/26/2205112022MENARDS-LOCK BARREL END COUPLERCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/11/22100-42100-50210 3222487.90 05/26/2205112022RDR GEARRDR GEAR05/11/22100-42100-50417 32224208.91 05/26/2205122022TRACTOR SUPPLY-AIR HOSE/INDUSTRIAL CREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/12/22100-43100-50210 3222429.97 05/26/22050722CLEAN UP DAY BAKERYCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/07/22100-43201-50210 32224261.56 05/26/2205062022CLEAN UP DAY DRINKSCREDIT CARD PURCHASES05/06/22100-43201-50210 3222442.35 05/26/2204142022DELANO TRUE VALUE-BUILDERS&HEAVY HCREDIT CARD PURCHASES04/14/22100-45200-50210 3222410.58 05/26/2204242022CORCORAN CROSSROADS-ICE FOR FAS CLCREDIT CARD PURCHASES04/24/22204-42100-50210 322246.44 05/26/2204242022-1CORCORAN CROSSROADS-POP FAS CLASSCREDIT CARD PURCHASES04/24/22204-42100-50210 3222424.56 05/26/2204242022-2CORCORAN CROSSROADS-WATER/ICE FASCREDIT CARD PURCHASES04/24/22204-42100-50210 3222435.87 05/26/22RB05022022VEHICLE LICENSE FEEDVS05/02/22416-42100-50210 322242,156.00 05/26/2204122022BEDSLIDE LLCCREDIT CARD PURCHASES04/12/22416-42100-50221 4,313.03 Total For Check 32224 Check 32225 3222540.95 05/26/22114X86002108CITY HALL WATER ACCT 1206-3CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER04/30/22100-41900-50210 40.95 Total For Check 32225 Check 32226 32226429.92 05/26/22E4-14956PW - REPLACE HEATERCUMMINS NPOWER LLC05/05/22602-49450-50220 429.92 Total For Check 32226 Check 32227 32227396.74 05/26/22S101824893.001PW - VENT PIPE/ADJ ELBOWDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP05/13/22100-43100-50223 32227407.08 05/26/22S101825993.001PW-PIPE CU K SOFTDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP05/13/22100-43100-50223 803.82 Total For Check 32227 Check 32228 3222834,500.00 05/26/2221631874HAIL DAMAGEEBERT CONSTRUCTION04/21/22100-43100-50811 34,500.00 Total For Check 32228 Check 32229 3222939.57 05/26/22889582MAY 12 PH SKIES LIMIT LLCECM PUBLISHERS INC04/28/22100-41910-50350 39.57 Total For Check 32229 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 3/8Page: 05/19/2022 02:36 PM User: mung DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 05/13/2022 - 05/26/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32230 32230206.22 05/26/2292713BACKGROUND CHECKEMPLOYEE RELATIONS04/30/22100-42100-50300 206.22 Total For Check 32230 Check 32231 322311,680.00 05/26/220490132WATER METERSFERGUSON WATERWORKS #251805/02/22601-49400-50227 1,680.00 Total For Check 32231 Check 32232 322321,199.12 05/26/2222-0295PD-GOLF CART LIGHTINGGUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY04/29/22416-42100-50580 1,199.12 Total For Check 32232 Check 32233 322331,031.34 05/26/221000186129JAIL CHARGESHENN CO SHERIFF04/30/22100-42100-50305 1,031.34 Total For Check 32233 Check 32234 322341,464.26 05/26/221000185544PD RADIO LEASE APRIL 2022HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH04/29/22100-42100-50323 32234231.66 05/26/221000185611PW RADIO FEE APRIL 2022HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH04/29/22100-43100-50323 1,695.92 Total For Check 32234 Check 32235 3223575.00 05/26/2205012022PD CAR WASHHOLIDAY COMPANIES05/01/22100-42100-50403 75.00 Total For Check 32235 Check 32236 322363,281.11 05/26/2277191.001OUTDOOR WARNING SYSTEM FINAL PAYMEINTEGRATED PROTECTION SYSTEM03/15/22209-42100-50520 3,281.11 Total For Check 32236 Check 32237 322372,090.00 05/26/2232911CORCORAN FARMS BUSINESS PARK CONCELANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205 322374,132.50 05/26/2232905PULTE RZ PUD AND PPLANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205 3223736.50 05/26/2232899SEASE ADU 22-026LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205 3223736.50 05/26/2232898PROTECH SP AND CUP 22-027LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205 322371,552.00 05/26/2232901BECHTOLD FARMS FP 22-024LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-013 32237808.00 05/26/2232890COOK LAKE HIGHLANDS FP AND FPUD 21LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/09/22100-00000-22205-017 322371,100.50 05/26/2232906KARINIEMI MEADOWS PP 22-013LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-044 32237829.50 05/26/2232897TAVERA 4TH FPUD AND FP 22-028LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-056 32237474.50 05/26/2232893TAVERA 3RD ADDITION FP AND FPUD 21LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/09/22100-00000-22205-056 32237182.50 05/26/2232887TAVERA FP AND FPUD 20-042LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/09/22100-00000-22205-056 3223773.00 05/26/2232888RAVINIA 15TH FP, PUD AMENDMENT 22-LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/09/22100-00000-22205-058 32237255.50 05/26/2232894NAPA CUP AND SP 21-004LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-075 32237258.50 05/26/2232892HIGHWAY 55 SKETCH PLAN 21-047LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/09/22100-00000-22205-080 322371,706.00 05/26/2232910BELLWETHER 8TH FP AND FPUD 22-007LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-087 322371,279.00 05/26/2232909AMBERLEY 2ND ADD FP AND FPUD 22-00LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-087 322371,031.50 05/26/2232903BELLWETHER 9 FP AND FPUD 22-017LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-087 32237756.50 05/26/2232886ENCORE FINAL PUD AND FP 18-027LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/09/22100-00000-22205-087 32237399.00 05/26/2232889BELLWETHER 7TH FP AND FPUD 21-060LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/09/22100-00000-22205-087 322371,671.00 05/26/2232907RUSH CREEK RESERVE 2ND FP AND FPUD LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-098 32237146.00 05/26/2232900RUSH CREEK RESERVE PUD AMENDMENT 2LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-098 32237275.50 05/26/2232904GARAGES TOO FP 22-015LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-111 322372,503.00 05/26/2232902ST. THERESE FINAL PLAT 22-023LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-117 32237893.50 05/26/2232908WESTSIDE TIRE VAR, SP AND IUP 22-0LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-127 322371,085.50 05/26/2232912WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC PP, SP, ALANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-00000-22205-128 3223767.50 05/26/2232913ANNUAL CODIFICATIONLANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-41910-50300 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 4/8Page: 05/19/2022 02:36 PM User: mung DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 05/13/2022 - 05/26/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32237 322376,301.00 05/26/2232895CITY BUSINESS AND MEETINGSLANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-41910-50300 322372,250.00 05/26/2232891NE DISTRICT PLANNING 21-050LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/09/22100-41910-50300 32237770.25 05/26/2232896CODE ENFORCEMENT LANDFORM PROFESSIONAL SERVIC05/10/22100-42401-50300 32,964.75 Total For Check 32237 Check 32238 322381,130.00 05/26/2205122022ESCROW REFUND GR21-011 19615 COUNTLEGATT, JENNA05/12/22100-00000-22206 1,130.00 Total For Check 32238 Check 32239 32239312.88 05/26/2267294PD-VEHICLE REPAIR SQUAD 562LITHGOW AUTOMOTIVE05/10/22100-42100-50403 312.88 Total For Check 32239 Check 32240 32240663.52 05/26/2228344PW-FUEL ISLAND REPLACEMENTLOBERG ELECTRIC INC05/03/22100-43100-50223 663.52 Total For Check 32240 Check 32241 32241285.00 05/26/2204_2022LABOR RELATION SERVICESMADDEN, GALANTER, HANSEN LLP05/05/22100-41600-50300 285.00 Total For Check 32241 Check 32242 32242600.00 05/26/2214569PUBLIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT MARTIN-MCALLISTER04/30/22100-42100-50300 600.00 Total For Check 32242 Check 32243 3224391.61 05/26/2298470CITY HALL/PD SUPPLIESMENARDS MAPLE GROVE05/11/22100-41900-50210 3224339.96 05/26/2298470CITY HALL/PD SUPPLIESMENARDS MAPLE GROVE05/11/22100-42100-50210 131.57 Total For Check 32243 Check 32244 322441,000.00 05/26/22INV2034938COPIER USE CHARGEMETRO SALES INC04/27/22100-41130-50350 3224497.50 05/26/22INV2038209STAPLE REFILL - NEWSLETTERMETRO SALES INC04/29/22100-41130-50350 322441,383.86 05/26/22INV2034938COPIER USE CHARGEMETRO SALES INC04/27/22100-41920-50210 2,481.36 Total For Check 32244 Check 32245 3224522,728.70 05/26/223267PERMIT INSPECTIONS APRIL 2022METRO WEST INSPECTION SERVIC05/01/22100-42400-50300 22,728.70 Total For Check 32245 Check 32246 3224611,642.72 05/26/220001139622WASTE WATER SERVICES 06/2022METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRO05/05/22602-49450-50312 11,642.72 Total For Check 32246 Check 32247 32247165.00 05/26/2205162022BEISE - 2022MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC05/16/22100-41320-50433 165.00 Total For Check 32247 Check 32248 32248151.99 05/26/22408496PD VEHICLE BATTERY - SQUAD 565NAPA AUTO PARTS - Corcoran05/03/22100-42100-50403 151.99 Total For Check 32248 Check 32249 32249194.36 05/26/221641917292PW SUPPLIESNORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT04/30/22100-43100-50210 3224993.97 05/26/221641917292PW SUPPLIESNORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT04/30/22100-45200-50210 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 5/8Page: 05/19/2022 02:36 PM User: mung DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 05/13/2022 - 05/26/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32249 288.33 Total For Check 32249 Check 32250 322503,622.50 05/26/227041FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PLANNORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC.05/04/22100-41900-50300 3,622.50 Total For Check 32250 Check 32251 322512,016.00 05/26/2223920CITY HALL/PD CARPET CLEANINGNORTHWEST CARPET CLEANERS05/06/22100-41900-50401 2,016.00 Total For Check 32251 Check 32252 3225236.46 05/26/22237613423001CITY HALL OFFICE SUPPLIES - SHARPIOPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC04/21/22100-41900-50200 3225226.34 05/26/22242286628002CITY HALL SUPPLIES - BINDERSOPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC05/03/22100-41900-50200 3225262.44 05/26/22242286628001LABELS/BINDER CLIPSOPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC05/02/22100-41900-50200 3225214.99 05/26/22237702155001OFFICE NAME TAGSOPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC04/21/22100-41900-50210 3225220.69 05/26/22237702153001COUNCIL CHAMBERS 50FT CABLEOPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC04/20/22100-41920-50221 160.92 Total For Check 32252 Check 32253 32253848.00 05/26/225749RIO SUBSCRIPTION PRORATES EXP 12/1OPG-3 INC05/16/22100-41920-50221 848.00 Total For Check 32253 Check 32254 322549,500.00 05/26/22E206655460" TERRAINCUT SNOWBLOWERRDO EQUIPMENT CO.04/28/22416-43100-50580 9,500.00 Total For Check 32254 Check 32255 3225511,615.13 05/26/22K18877KEYS/CARDS/MODULE AND TERMINALREAL TIME NETWORKS INC05/11/22416-42100-50210 11,615.13 Total For Check 32255 Check 32256 32256401.21 05/26/220894-005709897CITY HALL GARBAGE 3-0894-3468541REPUBLIC SERVICES04/30/22100-41900-50380 32256283.48 05/26/220894-005710887PW RECYCLING 3-0894-3469651REPUBLIC SERVICES04/30/22100-43100-50380 32256848.52 05/26/220894-005706139RECYCLING SERVICE - APRIL 2022REPUBLIC SERVICES04/30/22100-43201-50300 32256101.73 05/26/220894-005712275WILDFLOWER PARK GARBAGE 3-0894-347REPUBLIC SERVICES04/30/22100-45200-50380 1,634.94 Total For Check 32256 Check 32257 32257378.00 05/26/2261338PD BUSINESS CARDSROGERS PRINTING05/09/22100-42100-50200 378.00 Total For Check 32257 Check 32258 3225828.00 05/26/22A42273PD - 2 KEYS CUTRUSSELL SECURITY RESOURCE IN05/10/22100-42100-50223 28.00 Total For Check 32258 Check 32259 322596,580.50 05/26/2205102022PW - SANDBLASTERSPESCO, INC05/10/22416-43100-50580 6,580.50 Total For Check 32259 Check 32260 32260989.87 05/26/22I1566876PD UNIFORMS - SPELLACYSTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT05/05/22100-42100-50417 3226042.50 05/26/22I1566783PD SUPPLIES - 9MM MAGAZINESTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT05/05/22100-42100-50417 3226045.00 05/26/22I1566399GRIP MODULE/9MM MAGAZINESTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT05/03/22100-42100-50417 32260504.99 05/26/22I1565349PD 9MM MAGAZINE/WEAPON LIGHTSTREICHER'S POLICE EQUIPMENT04/28/22100-42100-50417 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 6/8Page: 05/19/2022 02:36 PM User: mung DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 05/13/2022 - 05/26/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32260 1,582.36 Total For Check 32260 Check 32261 32261140.00 05/26/220429473BADGE STATE SEAL/ANNIVERSARY BADGESYMBOLARTS LLC05/02/22100-42100-50417 140.00 Total For Check 32261 Check 32262 32262450.68 05/26/2205012022UNION DUES/TLDFTEAMSTER LOCAL 32005/01/22100-00000-21707 450.68 Total For Check 32262 Check 32263 3226339,294.38 05/26/22INV26133POLICE INTERCEPTOR 1FM5K8AC0NGA954TENVOORDE FORD, INC04/25/22416-42100-50550 39,294.38 Total For Check 32263 Check 32264 322641,118.27 05/26/2239301-00PW SUPPLIES -HEX NUT/HOSE CLAMP/TOTERMINAL SUPPLY CO04/26/22100-43100-50210 1,118.27 Total For Check 32264 Check 32265 32265247.41 05/26/229905087766PD/CH CELL PHONEVERIZON WIRELESS04/26/22100-41900-50321 322651,796.40 05/26/229905087766PD/CH CELL PHONEVERIZON WIRELESS04/26/22100-42100-50321 2,043.81 Total For Check 32265 Check 32266 32266282.00 05/26/22904884CLEANUP DAY DISPOSAL OF TIRESWESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE05/09/22100-43201-50210 282.00 Total For Check 32266 Check 32267 32267258.93 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-00000-22205-007 32267159.96 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-00000-22205-056 322671,022.17 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-00000-22205-065 32267208.74 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-00000-22205-087 32267202.42 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-00000-22205-098 322672,017.93 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-41900-50381 3226720.36 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-42100-50381 32267299.92 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-42151-50381 32267255.97 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-43100-50381 3226779.12 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22100-45200-50381 3226791.20 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22601-49400-50380 32267264.47 05/26/2235029618722STREET LIGHTSWRIGHT-HENNEPIN COOP ELECT05/10/22602-49450-50380 4,881.19 Total For Check 32267 Check 32268 3226827.48 05/26/22778105496STREET LIGHTSXCEL ENERGY05/02/22100-43100-50381 27.48 Total For Check 32268 Check 32269 32269158.70 05/26/22778240546STREET LIGHTSXCEL ENERGY05/03/22100-43100-50381 158.70 Total For Check 32269 Check 32270 3227027.33 05/26/22778676517STREET LIGHTSXCEL ENERGY05/05/22100-43100-50381 27.33 Total For Check 32270 Check 32271 32271309.00 05/26/220189179-INDISPOSABLE GUTTER BROOMZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC04/22/22100-45200-50210 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 7/8Page: 05/19/2022 02:36 PM User: mung DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 05/13/2022 - 05/26/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number Check 32271 309.00 Total For Check 32271 Check 32272 32272274.26 05/26/229007364090CITY HALL SUPPLIES-BLACK BAGSZEP SALES & SERVICE04/22/22100-41900-50210 274.26 Total For Check 32272 CHECK REGISTER - COUNCIL INVOICE GL DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF CORCORAN 8/8Page: 05/19/2022 02:36 PM User: mung DB: Corcoran EXP CHECK RUN DATES 05/13/2022 - 05/26/2022 JOURNALIZED PAID - CHECK TYPE: PAPER CHECK Check AmountChk DateInvoice Invoice Desc.VendorInvoice DateGL Number 143,938.61 Fund 100 GENERAL FUND 41.58 Fund 204 FIREARMS SAFETY 3,281.11 Fund 209 OUTDOOR WARNING POINT 101,366.00 Fund 416 CAPITAL-EQUIPMENT CERTS 22,764.30 Fund 601 WATER 12,337.11 Fund 602 SEWER Fund Totals: 283,728.71 Total For All Funds: City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-68 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATION WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is authorized to accept donations of real or personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 456.03 for the benefit of citizens, and is specifically authorized to accept gifts; and WHEREAS, the City received an in-kind donation of 8, 5-gallon buckets from an anonymous donor for the use during parks and recreation programming; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donation as offered for the benefit of the City of Corcoran, and residents; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Corcoran acknowledges the generosity of the anonymous donor and graciously accepts the donation. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee – Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City Seal Agenda Item: 7d. Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer Steven Hegland, PE Project: 227704747 Date: May 19, 2022 Subject: Mass Grading and Stormwater Design for City Center Drive and 79th Place – Authorization to Bid Council Action Requested ·We ask the City Council to consider the Mass Grading and Stormwater Design for City Center Drive and 79th Place Plans as presented and accept plans and specifications and authorize bidding for the project. The advertisement for bidding is attached to this memo. Background ·During initial planning of the St. Therese and City Center and 79th Place projects, the benefits of a subregional stormwater system were discussed. Through the development process and in accordance with the SE Districts Guidelines, St. Therese request of the city to design the stormwater management systems and mass grade both the development and adjacent roadways which would result in efficiencies and costs savings for both parties. ·As part of the development of this subregional system, we engaged the property owner to the south and explored including capacity within the stormwater pond for future development to the south. Estimated costs of participating in the subregional system were presented to the property owner but they ultimately decided not to participate and instead any stormwater management for their development will be addressed within their development. ·The Project includes construction of the subregional stormwater pond, grading of 79th Place and City Center Drive, Grading of the St. Therese Site and stockpiling approximately 5,000 cubic yards of materials to be used for the turn lane expansion and topsoil restoration with the roadway portion of the project which may happen this fall but more likely in 2023. ·The project has been reviewed by Elm Creek Watershed staff and we have worked with them to ensure the project complies with the Watershed requirements in addition to adhering to the City of Corcoran Stormwater Requirements. Elm Creek Watershed Grading approval is anticipated prior to bidding the project. Schedule The following is an anticipated schedule: ·Council Authorizes Ad for Bids May 26 ·Bid Opening June 23 ·Council Awards Bid July 14 ·Project Construction August - October ·Final Completion Fall 2022 Agenda Item: 7e. May 19, 2022 Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 2 Reference: Mass Grading and Stormwater Design for City Center Drive and 79th Place – Authorization to Bid hs u:\227704747\technical\03 - bidding\05 - authorize for bid\authorize for bid recommendation memo.docx Cost and Funding This design portion of the project was funded through an initial cost share agreement between the City of Corcoran and St. Therese. City Staff and St. Therese have discussed the cost share breakdown of the proposed construction project and a formal cost share agreement will need to be entered into prior to awarding the project. The grading costs for the project are based on the grading needs for the development parcel and the grading needs for the public roadways and the stormwater costs are proportion to the contributing impervious surfaces. The total grading and stormwater project costs are estimated to be $1,972,156,20 as shown in the attached table with the City responsibility being $772,584.54 and the St. Therese responsibility being $1,199,571.66. Recommendations Staff is recommending that Council review and accept the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement for bids for the Mass Grading and Stormwater Design for City Center Drive and 79th Place. Site plans (Sheets C-001 and C-301) are attached for reference. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Kent Torve, PE City Engineer Phone: 763-479-4209 ktorve@wenck.com Attachments: · Advertisement for Bid · Cost Estimate · Mass Grading and Stormwater Design for City Center Drive and 79th Place Site Plans Project No. 227704747 Advertisement for Bids 00 11 13-1 SECTION 00 11 13 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS Electronic Bid Proposals will be received by the City of Corcoran, 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, Minnesota 55340 until 10:00 a.m., Thursday, June 23rd, 2022, at which time such bids will be publicly opened and read aloud . The work, in accordance with Drawings and Specifications prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc., consists of the following major items of work and approximate quantities: 62,085 Cubic Yards Topsoil Strip 90,665 Cubic Yards Common Excavation - Onsite 40,759 Cubic Yards Common Excavation - Offsite 110,956 Cubic Yards Common Embankment - Onsite 72,628 Cubic Yards Topsoil Fill 1 Each 7’ Diameter Outlet Control Structure 88 Linear Feet 42” RC Pipe, Class V 240 Cubic Yards Coarse Filter Aggregate 510 Cubic Yards Premixed Iron/Fine Filter Aggregate 940 Linear Feet PVC Draintile Together with selective demolition, traffic control, erosion controls, seeding, and other related appurtenances. Each bid proposal shall be accompanied by a "Bid Security" in the form of a certified check made payable to the “City of Corcoran” (OWNER) in the amount not less than five percent (5%) of the total bid, or a surety bond in the same amount, running to the OWNER, with the surety company thereon duly authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. Such Bid Security to be a guarantee that the bidder will not, without the consent of the OWNER, withdraw their bid for a period of ninety (90) days after the opening of bids, and if awarded a contract, will enter into a contract with the OWNER; and the amount of the certified check will be retained or the bond enforced by the OWNER in case the bidder fails to do so. All bid securities except those of the three lowest bidders will be returned within five days after the opening of bids. Eligible Bidders for this project must meet the Minimum Criteria as defined in the Section 00 45 49 Responsible Contractor Law in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 16C.285, subdivision 3, and additional criteria required by the OWNER. Bid Proposals shall be submitted on forms furnished for that purpose. Bids shall be submitted electronically through the QuestCDN website in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders. No bidder shall withdraw their bid, without the consent of the OWNER, for the period of days indicated above after the date for the opening thereof. The OWNER, however, reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any minor irregularities, informalities or discrepancies. A work history detailing qualifications and past experience must be provided upon request. Project No. 227704747 Advertisement for Bids 00 11 13-2 The Project Manual is available on QuestCDN (www.questcdn.com). You may download the digital plan documents for $30.00 by inputting Quest Project #8216704 on the website’s project search page. Please contact QuestCDN at 952- 233-1632 or info@questcdn.com for assistance in free membership registration, downloading, and working with this digital project information, and submission of electronic bids. Direct inquiries to Steve Hegland at (763) 479-4237 or steven.hegland@stantec.com Steve Hegland, Project Engineer City of Corcoran/Stantec PUBLISHED: QuestCDN.com: June 2, 2022 Crow River News: June 2, 2022 Bid Item Description Units Quantity Unit Price Total Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 0.40 10,000.00$ 0.60 15,000.00$ 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 0.40 800.00$ 0.60 1,200.00$ 3 CLEARING ACRE 4.30 5,000.00$ 21,500.00$ 3.17 15,850.00$ 1.13 5,650.00$ 4 GRUBBING ACRE 4.30 5,000.00$ 21,500.00$ 3.17 15,850.00$ 1.13 5,650.00$ 5 CLEARING TREE 5 500.00$ 2,500.00$ 5.00 2,500.00$ 0.00 -$ 6 GRUBBING TREE 5 500.00$ 2,500.00$ 5.00 2,500.00$ 0.00 -$ 7 TOPSOIL STRIP (EV)CU YD 62085 1.25$ 77,606.25$ 2900 3,625.00$ 59185.00 73,981.25$ 8 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) - ONSITE CU YD 90665 1.25$ 113,331.25$ 39778 49,722.50$ 50887 63,608.75$ 9 TOPSOIL FILL (CV)CU YD 72628 1.75$ 127,099.00$ 2000 3,500.00$ 70628 123,599.00$ 10 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) - ONSITE CU YD 110956 1.75$ 194,173.00$ 38278 66,986.50$ 72678 127,186.50$ 11 STOCKPILE COMMON (CV)CU YD 1500 1.50$ 2,250.00$ 1500 2,250.00$ 0 -$ 12 STOCKPILE TOPSOIL (CV)CU YD 3100 1.50$ 4,650.00$ 900 1,350.00$ 2200 3,300.00$ 13 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) - OFFSITE CU YD 40759 12.00$ 489,108.00$ 20667 248,004.00$ 20092 241,104.00$ 14 COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE CU YD 240 75.00$ 18,000.00$ 70 5,250.00$ 170 12,750.00$ 15 PREMIXED IRON/FINE FILTER AGGREGATE CU YD 510 200.00$ 102,000.00$ 150 30,000.00$ 360 72,000.00$ 16 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE IV (NON-WOVEN)SY 918 5.00$ 4,590.00$ 265 1,325.00$ 653 3,265.00$ 17 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS III CU YD 30 140.00$ 4,200.00$ 8.66 1,212.20$ 21.34 2,987.80$ 18 RIPRAP, CLASS II CU YD 15 120.00$ 1,800.00$ 4.33 519.51$ 10.67 1,280.49$ 19 42" RCP CLASS V STORM SEWER LF 88 350.00$ 30,800.00$ 25.40 8,889.43$ 62.60 21,910.57$ 20 8" SOLID PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPE LF 87 50.00$ 4,350.00$ 25.11 1,255.49$ 61.89 3,094.51$ 21 6" SOLID PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPE LF 5 40.00$ 200.00$ 1.44 57.72$ 3.56 142.28$ 22 6" PERFORATED PVC SCH 40 DRAIN TILE PIPE LF 850 40.00$ 34,000.00$ 245.33 9,813.01$ 604.67 24,186.99$ 23 6" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EA 11 700.00$ 7,700.00$ 3.17 2,222.36$ 7.83 5,477.64$ 24 42" RCP FLARED END AND TRASH GUARD EA 1 5,250.00$ 5,250.00$ 0.29 1,515.24$ 0.71 3,734.76$ 25 7' DIA OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE EA 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 0.29 2,886.18$ 0.71 7,113.82$ 26 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS - MAINTAINED LF 7034 1.50$ 10,551.00$ 3517 5,275.50$ 3517 5,275.50$ 27 SEEDING AND RESTORATION ACRE 23.4 4,000.00$ 93,600.00$ 10.8 43,200.00$ 12.60 50,400.00$ 1,410,258.50$ 536,359.64$ 873,898.86$ 141,025.85$ 53,635.96$ 87,389.89$ 1,551,284.35$ 589,995.60$ 961,288.75$ 232,692.65$ 88,499.34$ 144,193.31$ WETLAND MITIGATION CREDITS 188,179.20$ 94,089.60$ 94,089.60$ 1,972,156.20$ 772,584.54$ 1,199,571.66$ (1)Earthwork costs allocated based on earthwork necessary to grade within project limits (2)Pond costs allocated based on contributing impervious areas. Stantec Project Number: 227704747 City Contribution BID SCHEDULE A: EARTHWORK (1) St. Therese Contribution SUBTOTAL 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 15% LEGAL, ENGINEERING, ADMIN, FINANCE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS BID SCHEDULE B: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (2) PROJECT LOCATIONCOUNTY ROAD 116CORCORANCOUNTY HIGHWAY 10REBECCA PARK TRAILOWNERCITY OF CORCORAN8200 COUNTY ROAD 116CORCORAN, MINNESOTA 55340CITY COUNCILMAYOR TOM MCKEECOUNCIL MEMBER JONATHAN BOTTEMACOUNCIL MEMBER JEREMY NICHOLSCOUNCIL MEMBER ALAN SCHULTZCOUNCIL MEMBER DEAN VEHRENKAMPCITY ADMINISTRATOR JESSICA BEISEPUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR KEVIN MATTSONENGINEERSTANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAYGOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55427(E) - STEVEN.HEGLAND@STANTEC.COMCONTACT: STEVE HEGLAND, P.E.VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEMASS GRADING AND STORMWATER DESIGNFORCITY CENTER DRIVE AND 79TH PLACECORCORAN, MINNESOTA 55340MAY 2022PROJECT LOCATIONCITY: CORCORANCOUNTY: HENNEPINC-001COVER SHEETDATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 5224305/19/2022STEVEN HEGLANDDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:227704747U:\227704747\Drafting\5_DESIGN\1_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\HOLDDOWN GRADING PLANS\C-001 COVER SHEET.dwg DESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:5/19/2022 3:32:50 PM CLIENT:CITY OFCORCORANMASS GRADING AND STORMWATER DESIGN FOR CITY CENTER DRIVE AND 79TH PLACE CORCORAN, MINNESOTA PROJECT TITLE:NPWCHK'D BY:NPWAPP'D BY:SKHCERTIFICATION:8200 COUNTY ROAD 116CORCORAN , MN 553401800 PIONEER CREEK CENTERMAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359PHONE: 763-479-4200FAX: 763-479-4242WWW.STANTEC.COMISSUED FOR BID05/19/2022 0 05/19/20220SHEET LIST TABLESHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEC-001COVER SHEETC-002GENERAL NOTES AND LEGENDC-003EXISTING CONDITIONSC-004REMOVALS AND PRECONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL PLANC-005REMOVALS AND PRECONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL PLANC-006REMOVALS AND PRECONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL PLANC-201WETLAND PLANC-202SWPPPC-301GRADING PLANC-302GRADING PLANC-303GRADING PLANC-304GRADING PLANC-305GRADING PLANC-401ROAD PLAN AND PROFILESC-402ROAD PLAN AND PROFILESC-403ROAD PLAN AND PROFILESC-501STORM SEWER PLANC-502STORM SEWER PLANC-503STORM SEWER PLANC-504STORM SEWER PLANC-505STORM SEWER PLANC-801DETAILSTHIS PLANSET CONTAINS 22 SHEETS GRADING LIMITS.CONTOURS WEST OF THE GRADING LIMITSSHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY.CONTRACTOR TO GRADE FROM GRADINGLIMIT TO NORTH AND WEST AT A 4:1 TOEXISTING GRADE TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITHSEPTIC LINE.►► ►►►► ►►►►DATE:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTA.LICENSE NO.: 5224305/19/2022STEVEN HEGLANDDWN BY:ISSUE DATE:PROJECT NO.:227704747U:\227704747\Drafting\5_DESIGN\1_CAD\3 PLANSHEETS\HOLDDOWN GRADING PLANS\C-301 GRADING PLAN.dwg DESCRIPTION:DATE:ISSUE NO.:ISSUE NO.:SHEET NO.:SHEET TITLE:5/19/2022 3:30:15 PM CLIENT:CITY OFCORCORANMASS GRADING AND STORMWATER DESIGN FOR CITY CENTER DRIVE AND 79TH PLACE CORCORAN, MINNESOTA PROJECT TITLE:NPWCHK'D BY:NPWAPP'D BY:SKHCERTIFICATION:8200 COUNTY ROAD 116CORCORAN , MN 553401800 PIONEER CREEK CENTERMAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359PHONE: 763-479-4200FAX: 763-479-4242WWW.STANTEC.COMISSUED FOR BID05/19/2022 0 05/19/20220( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE1 inch = 1 ft.08016080C-301GRADING PLANLOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYLEGENDPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900GRADING LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSHOLD DOWN ELEVATIONSURFACE GRADE & FLOW DIRECTIONEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR►►►►STORM SEWERSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINFLARED END SECTIONHD=9XX.XX1.00%1.EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS AT MATCH POINTS ARE BASED ONINTERPOLATED POINT TO POINT SURVEY DATA. CONTRACTOR ISRESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING CONNECTION POINTS PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR MAKINGNECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS IN THE FIELD FORCONSTRUCTABILITY, POSITIVE DRAINAGE, AND TO ENSURESMOOTH TRANSITIONS TO FIELD CONDITIONS. CONTRACTORSHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY FIELDDISCREPANCIES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REWORKOF AN UNCOMMUNICATED DISCREPANCY.2.CONTRACTOR MUST IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE OWNER ANDENGINEER IN WRITING OF DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS INTHE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. NOFIELD CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS ARE TO BE MADE WITHOUTPRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER AND ENGINEER INWRITING. FAILURE TO NOTIFY OWNER AND ENGINEER INWRITING OF AN IDENTIFIABLE CONFLICT BEFORE PROCEEDINGWITH INSTALLATION RELIEVES OWNER AND ENGINEER OF ANYOBLIGATION TO PAY FOR A RELATED CHANGE ORDER.3.GRADING SHOWN IS TO SUBCUT ELEVATION AND SHOULD BEVERIFIED WITH CITY CENTER DRIVE PLANS BY STANTEC PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION.4.TOPSOIL SHALL BE STRIPPED FROM THE SITE PRIOR TO MASSGRADING WORK. TIE-INS MAY NOT BE EXACT DUE TO VARIABLETOPSOIL ELEVATIONS THROUGHOUT THE SITE. REFERENCE THEGEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR TOPSOIL THICKNESSES PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION.NOTESBUILDING ENVELOPESITE A Page 1 of 5 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 7f. City Council Meeting: May 26, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Ditzer Garage CUP (City File. No. 22-020) 9320 Cherry La (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: July 14, 2022 1.Application Request The applicant requests a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a detached garage at 9320 Cherry Lane. A CUP is required to allow a maximum sidewall height of 12 feet for an accessory structure placed in the side yard where a 10 feet sidewall height is permitted. 2.Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed this item at a public hearing on May 5, 2022. No comments were received. The applicant did ask the Commission to reconsider the requirement to relocate an existing accessory structure to meet the 20-foot setback from a side property line. The Planning Commission moved to change verbiage in the resolution to indicate the applicant should request a variance if they choose to not comply with the setback. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use The property is zoned Urban Reserve (UR), and the Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Existing Residential. The property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The present land use of the site includes a single-family residential home with one detached accessory structure under 200 square feet. Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are zoned UR, guided for Existing Residential, and located within the MUSA. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) map identifies a shrub wetland throughout the property. A wetland delineation identified two wetland basins on the property. The proposed location of the accessory structure is near the delineated wetland boundary for Wetland Basin 2. The expected impact to the wetland is minimal. Page 2 of 5 4. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, and the Engineering Memo is attached. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving or denying a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is limited to whether the proposed plan is in substantial conformance with the standards outlined in the City Code. If it meets those standards, the City must approve the CUP. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Architectural/Building Standards The submitted plans are consistent with ordinance standards in Section 1030.020, Subd. 4. The maximum allowable accumulated footprint for accessory buildings on this 3.68-acre parcel within the UR is 2,031 square feet. Additionally, one structure under 200 square feet is allowed without counting towards the allowable footprint. The new garage is within the maximum allowable footprint at 1,014 square feet. There is only one other accessory structure on the property noted as a canopy on the survey (along the northwest border, near the planters) that is approximately 195 square feet. The proposed materials comply with the standards for accessory structures outlined in Section 1030.020, Subd. 6 and Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(D). The conceptual design submitted for the garage shows gray and tan colored LP lap siding, LP soffit, and LP fascia. The building includes three bays with windows above each garage door which breaks up the mass of the front facade. There are minimal aesthetic features on the rest of the building to break up the mass of the structure, but it is unlikely the garage will be visible from the public view. Metal roofing is allowed via a certificate of compliance if the materials meet the standards in the MN State Building Code and are treated with a factory applied color coating system to protect against facing. The materials comply. The plans indicate the detached garage has a maximum sidewall height of 12 feet. This exceeds the maximum sidewall height of 10 feet for accessory structures placed in the front and side yard provided in Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(C). Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(D) allows landowners to request sidewall heights that exceed this limit with a CUP, which is discussed later in this analysis. The dimensions of the proposed eaves and overhang are not clear within the submitted plans to confirm consistency with Section 1030.020, Subd. 5(B). A condition of approval is provided to ensure this information is submitted for review as part of the typical building permit process. The eaves and overhang must meet the Page 3 of 5 minimums for a 12 feet sidewall height, which is 12 in. for eaves and 18 in. for the overhang. The grades in the southeast corner of the proposed garage are steeper than the 4:1 ratio that is allowed by City standards. The grading must also stay outside of the designated wetland area reflected on the plans. The garage placement must be moved farther away from the wetland, or a retaining wall must be proposed. If the applicant chooses to proceed with a retaining wall, this will be further coordinated with the building permit. Landscaping No landscape plan is required. The applicant does not indicate any additional trees or shrubs to be planted or removed on their application. Setbacks Section 1030.020, Subd. 3 provides the location requirements for accessory structures. The proposed building will be in the side yard and exceeds the required building separation of 10 feet from the principal building on the property. Additionally, the detached garage complies with the 50-foot front setback, 20-foot side setback, and the 15-foot rear setback. The existing accessory structure on the site does not meet setbacks for accessory structures. The survey indicates it is 1.8 feet away from the property line. As a condition of approval, the structure must be moved to meet the 20-foot side yard setback, or a variance will need to be granted to bring the site into compliance. After the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a variance request to go to Planning Commission on June 2nd and City Council on June 23rd. Conditional Use Permit 1. The proposed use shall be in conformance with all City Regulations. Accessory structures are a permitted use in the UR district. There are limitations on the maximum accumulated footprint for accessory structures in the UR district. The property currently has one accessory structures under 200 square feet, and an additional accumulated footprint of 2,031 square feet is allowed. The proposed structure will have a footprint of 1,014 square feet. The maximum sidewall height of the proposed building reaches 12 feet, and the garage will be placed in the side yard. The permitted sidewall height in the side yard is 10 feet unless approved by a CUP. 2. A certificate of survey shall be required that identifies all existing structures on site, including buildings, septic sites and wells. In addition, the survey shall Page 4 of 5 include the proposed structure, flood plain, wetlands, and any recorded easements. A wetland delineation was completed and approved by the City on January 24, 2022. A certificate of survey, dated February 18, 2022, was provided to the City with the remaining necessary information. 3. Applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance. A. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and capital improvement plans. The proposed use is consistent with the residential use anticipated on this site by the Comprehensive Plan. The use is also consistent with the Existing Residential land use designation as the property will maintain the existing density of the area of roughly 1 living unit per 2 acres. B. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the community. The establishment of the use will allow for indoor storage of personal vehicles on the site. The use is allowed within the UR District. C. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish and impact property values within the neighborhood. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of nearby properties, nor substantially impact property values within the neighborhood. The existing vegetation on the property will provide some screening to the surrounding properties. Compliance with the Engineering Memo will address potential grading issues. D. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property uses permitted in the district. The establishment of the conditional use does not cause an impediment to development and improvement of surrounding properties for permitted uses within the UR. Page 5 of 5 E. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to accommodate the proposed use. Municipal sewer and water are not available to the site and are not required to accommodate the proposed uses. Well and septic systems are available on the property. F. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The conditional use, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations within the UR district. G. The conditional use and site conform to the performance standards as specified by this Chapter. Staff analyzed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and included conditions to ensure compliance with the performance standards. 5. Conclusion Staff reviewed the plans with the applicable standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and finds that the standards for a CUP are satisfied. The proposed use is consistent with the type of use existing and projected for the UR district area of the City. Any outstanding issues that must be addressed are included as a condition of approval in the attached resolution. 6. Recommendation Move to approve Resolution 2022-58 approving the CUP for an accessory building exceeding 10’ sidewall height on the property. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022-58 2. Aerial Location Map 3. 2040 Land Use Map 4. Survey and Plans 5. Engineering Memo Dated 4/18/2022 City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9320 CHERRY LANE (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (CITY FILE NO. 22-020) WHEREAS, Benjamin Ditzer requests approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an accessory building on property legal described as follows: SEE ATTACHMENT A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit at a duly called public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request, subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A conditional use permit is approved to allow for the construction of a building as shown on the application and plans received by the City on March 10, 2022. 2. The applicant must comply with all conditions in the City Engineer’s Memo dated April 18, 2022. 3. A certificate of compliance to allow metal roof on this accessory building is also approved as part of the conditional use permit. a. The building materials must comply with Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(D)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. A conditional use permit is approved to allow for an accessory building with sidewalls of 12 feet where 10 feet is allowed, subject to the finding that applicable criteria as outlined in Section 1070.020 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Corcoran Zoning Ordinance have been met. Specifically: a. The proposed use complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with the Existing Residential land use designation and maintains the defined density of the area of one living unit per two acres. b. The establishment of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare. The conditional use permit for the new structure will allow for indoor storage of personal vehicles on the site. c. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Existing vegetation on the site will provide screening. Conditions identified in the resolution will ensure compliance with City engineering standards. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 2 of 4 d. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property uses permitted in the district. e. Municipal sewer and water are not available to the site and are not required to accommodate the proposed use. Well and septic systems are available on the property. f. The conditional use conforms to the applicable regulations of the Urban Reserve district. g. Conditions in this resolution will ensure the conditional use and site conform to the accessory structure ordinances. Staff found that the building conforms to all other performance standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance as required by Chapter 1070.020. 5. The property cannot be used for commercial purposes unless a separate approval is requested and granted by the City. 6. A building permit is required prior to beginning construction. 7. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of building permits: a. Revised plans must be submitted to confirm the dimensions of the eaves and overhang satisfy the following minimums: i. 12 in. eaves ii. 18 in. overhang b. The existing accessory structure on the site must be moved to meet the 20-foot side setback unless the applicant applies for and is granted a variance from the City Council. c. The placement of the garage must either be moved for grading to stay out of Wetland Basin 2, or plans must be submitted for a retaining wall. d. The applicant/landowner must record the approving resolution at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 8. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant commences the authorized use and the required improvements. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 3 of 4 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A Lot 5, Block 3, Brandywine Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Ditze r Ga ra ge C UP(C ity File 22 -02 0) Da te : 4/2 8/20 22 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 2 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 12 119 23 430 01 3 OWN ER N AME: B J D itze r & A D itze r PAR CEL AD DRESS: 9 320 C he rr y La , C or co ran MN 55 34 0 PAR CEL AR EA: 3.6 8 ac re s, 160 ,193 sq ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $61 7,85 5 SAL E D ATA: 0 7/20 20 SAL E C OD E: Exclu de d Fro m Ra tio Stud ies ASSESSED 20 21 , PAYABLE 202 2 PROPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial H OM ESTEAD : H ome ste ad M AR KET VAL UE: $59 7,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $8 ,1 45.6 6 ASSESSED 20 22 , PAYABLE 202 3 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial HO MESTEAD: Ho meste ad MARKET VALU E: $6 85 ,0 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not s uitable for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 2 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Ditzer Garage Conditional Use Permit Date: April 18, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Permit Application Ditzer Garage, Dated March 10, 2022, 2. Conditional Use Permit App, Dated March 10, 2022 Comments: General: 1. The grades in the southeast corner of the proposed garage are steeper than the 4:1 that is allowed by city standards. The grading must also stay outside of the designated wetland area shown on the plans so, the garage must be moved or a retaining wall must be proposed. Note, any wall 4’ or taller shall be designed by Professional Engineer. 2. If a wall is included, coordinate with the building permit department for any submittal requirements with garage plan. End of Comments 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 7g. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Nicholas Ouellette through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 17, 2022 for the May 26, 2022 City Council Meeting RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Landspec Fund II, LLC for “Pioneer Trail Industrial Park” at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Pioneer Trail (PID’s 32-119-23-34-0013, 32- 119-23-34-0007 32-119-23-43-0005, 32-119-23-43-0006) (city file no. 21-047) REVIEW DEADLINE: N/A 1.Description of Request An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required for the proposed five lot industrial/business park with 10 buildings and a new public road. The project is located on a 56.54 acre site at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Pioneer Trail. The Minnesota Environmental Review Program rules require a mandatory EAW for new warehousing or light industrial facilities greater than 300,000 gross square feet in cities under 10,000 in population. 2.Comments Received on the EAW Section 4410.1600 of the Environmental Rules states that comments received on the EAW shall address the accuracy and completeness of the material, potential environmental impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced and the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 30-day EAW comment period ended on May 5, 2022. The response to the EAW comments was prepared and is attached as “Record of Decision.” This document includes all written comments submitted by governmental agencies as well as responses to their comments. 3.Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making Under Minnesota Environmental Review Program Rules, the City is the governmental unit responsible for preparing this EAW and determining whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The purpose of the environmental review process is to provide usable information to the project proposer, governmental decision-makers and the public concerning the primary environmental effects of a proposed project. The EAW should identify measures to protect the environment that can later be imposed as conditions of approval in future development applications. If the EAW identifies significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated or minimized, the City Council would order the preparation of an EIS. An EIS does not necessarily disclose more information Pioneer Trail Industrial Park (21-047) 2 May 26, 2022 about potential impacts; rather, its main purpose is to examine project alternatives and additional mitigative measures to lessen significant impacts identified in the EAW. Furthermore, an EIS is not a means to approve or deny a project, but is an additional source of information to guide decisions. Very few projects move to the EIS stage because, in most cases, the EAW does an adequate job of describing potential impacts and identifying mitigative measures. The statutory standard for requiring an EIS is whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects – it is not whether the EAW has adequately disclosed information about potential impacts. Accordingly, if the City Council determines that the EAW does not disclose sufficient information about the potential impacts. The City Council would request additional information before deciding on the need for an EIS. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that would warrant the preparation of an EIS, the City Council must consider the following factors (Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, Section 4410.1700, Subpart 7): a. Type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects; b. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant, whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; c. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and d. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. The City Council has three courses of action when reviewing an EAW. These actions include: 1. Require additional information to address possible environmental impacts not adequately discussed in the EAW; 2. Make a finding of “no need” for an EIS; or 3. Order an EIS. 4. Public Comment Period The Minnesota EQB advertises the availability of the document and the City transmits the EAW to a standard list of regional and state agencies for comment. The comment period for an EAW is 30 days. During this time period, the agencies and any member of the general public may comment on the EAW. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park (21-047) 3 May 26, 2022 The 30-day comment period ended on May 5, 2022. Comments submitted during the 30-day period should address the accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EAW, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced and the need for an EIS on the proposed project. After the close of the comment period, staff from Stantec and Landform prepared responses to the comments for review and consideration by the City Council. The response is included in the record of decision. The record of decision is intended to serve as the City’s findings of fact of a decision that an EIS does not need to be prepared for this project. The City received four comment letters from reviewing agencies. None of these letters stated that the EAW was inadequate or incomplete or identified the need for the preparation of an EIS. 5. Development Review Process If the City Council declares a finding of “no need” for an EIS, the developer could submit a formal development application that addresses any mitigation strategies identified in the EAW. A formal application has two steps: 1. Application for a rezoning to PUD, preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat. This requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Notice of the public hearing will be sent to landowners within 300 ft. of the property, will be published in the newspaper and posted on the City website. The public hearing is an opportunity for comment. 2. Final plat and final PUD plan for phase 1 of the project. Future phases will require final plat and final PUD plan approval. During this formal review process, the City would review and provide recommended changes to the plans submitted by the applicant. This would also start the City work to design any off-site infrastructure improvements that would be needed for this development, including streets and utilities. In addition to the City’s entitlement process, the developer would be required to obtain the permits listed I the EAW. 6. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the resolution declaring a finding of “no need” for an EIS, based on the review of the EAW dated March 24, 2022. Approval of a finding of “no need” for an EIS requires a simple majority vote of the City Council. Attachments 1. Resolution 2022-60 Declaring a Finding of “No Need” for an Environmental Impact Statement 2. Record of Decision 3. EAW dated March 24, 2022 City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-60 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: RESOLUTION DECLARING FINDING OF “NO NEED” FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR “PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK” PROPOSED BY LANDSPEC FUND II, LLC AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 55 AND PIONEER TRAIL (PID’S 32-119-23-34-0013, 32-119-23-34-0007 32-119-23-43-0005, 32-119-23-43-0006) (CITY FILE NO. 21-047) WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for an industrial/business park on May 26, 2022; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Environmental Review Program Rules 4410.4300, Subpart 14, the City of Corcoran, as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) submitted an EAW for the proposed project on March 24, 2022; and WHEREAS, the EAW was published on April 5, 2022 edition of the EQB Monitor, which commenced the required 30-day public comment period that ended on May 5, 2022; and WHEREAS, the RGU received four comment letters that are incorporated by reference in the Record of Decision and all comments and recommendations received from reviewing agencies and other interested parties have been considered; and WHEREAS, responses were prepared for comment letters received and the response to comments are provided in the Record of Decision; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed project does not present a potential for environmental impacts of such significance that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Rules, Section 4410.1700, the RGU shall base its decision regarding the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the EAW process, the comments received on the EAW and the criteria established by the EQB to determine whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects as provided in the Record of Decision; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does make the Negative Declaration on the need for an EIS for the proposed industrial/business park development, based on the Record of Decision, which is hereby approved, adopted and incorporated herein. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-60 Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director May 26, 2022 1 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet Notice of Decision Contents Record of Decision ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Response to Comments ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Appendix A: Comments and Letters Received During and After Public Comment Period Appendix B: Resolution Declaring Finding of “No Need” Appendix C: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Record of Decision May 26, 2022 2 Record of Decision Based on the EAW, the Response to Comments and the Findings of Fact, the City of Corcoran City Council concludes the following: 1. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met. 2. The EAW and the development processes related to the Project have generated information which is adequate to determine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified have included proper mitigative responses to be included within the final design of the Project. Mitigation will be required to be provided where impacts are expected to result from Project construction, operation or maintenance. Mitigative measures will be required to be incorporated into project design, and have been or will be coordinated with state and federal agencies during the applicable permit process. 4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules part 4410.4300, Subpart 14, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed Pioneer Trail Industrial Park development project. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 3 Response to Comments The Pioneer Trail Industrial Park discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was approved for distribution to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and persons and agencies on the official EQB distribution list in accordance with EQB rules on March 29, 2022. The EQB published notice of availability in the EQB Monitor on April 5, 2022. The 30-day comment period ended on May 5, 2022. The City of Corcoran received four EAW comment letters or emails. The letters and emails are on file at the City of Corcoran. The following comment letters were sent to the City of Corcoran: Letter 1: Hennepin County Public Works - Email dated April 25, 2022 from Jason Gottfried, Transportation Planner and Karen Galles, Environment and Energy to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 2: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Letter dated April 28, 2022 from Karen Kromar, Planner Principal, Environmental Review Unit, Resource Management and Assistance Division to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 3: Metropolitan Council - Letter dated May 5, 2022 from Angela Torres, Manager, Local Planning Assistance to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner Letter 4: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Letter dated May 5, 2022 from Melissa Collins, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Ecological and Water Resources to Kendra Lindahl, City Planner The following information and clarifications are provided in response to all EAW comments received during the 30-day comment period. Comments are provided in italicized text. Letter 1: Hennepin County Public Works Comment 1: Pg 5, Table 4: Significant land cover proposed as lawn, landscaping and pavement - Hennepin County encourages the proposer to reach out if they have interest on partnering to improve environmental outcomes from these cover types. Response: Thank you for your comment. The City will inform the Proposer of Hennepin County’s interest in partnering to improve environmental outcomes. Comment 2: Pg 8 and 9: City ordinance and state law require that project proposers make an effort to avoided and minimize impacts to ALL wetlands before they can be permitted. What has the proposer has done to avoid and minimize wetland impacts? Response: It is understood that the City’s ordinance and state law require that proposers consider opportunities to avoid and minimize all wetlands. The Proposer considered opportunities to avoid wetlands where feasible. The Proposer sited buildings within the industrial park to entirely avoid Wetland 1 and Wetland 2, and to minimize impacts to Wetland 3 and Wetland 4. The EAW conservatively indicated that the Project would potentially impact Wetland 3 and Wetland 4. Impacts to Wetland 3 will be minimized to the extent possible during the development of the final design and permitting process. The potential to avoid or minimize impacts to Wetland 4 will be considered as the final design develops. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 4 For the purposes of the EAW, potential wetland impacts were estimated conservatively. It is anticipated the wetland impacts will be reduced during the development of the final design and permitting process. It is not anticipated that complete avoidance of wetland impacts will be feasible, however, wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will be provided in accordance with all State and local regulations. Comment 3: Pg 11, Table 9: Hennepin County Environment & Energy Division has some financial resources to contribute to plan improvements (above regulatory requirements) that might benefit Jubert Lake or Peter Lake (both of which are included in the boundaries of subwatersheds that are currently priorities for water quality improvement. Response: Comment noted. The City will inform the Proposer of the potential financial resources available through Hennepin County. Comment 4: Pg 15: What are receiving waterbodies to which those existing wetlands and road ditches drain? Need to know this in order to fully understand impact on nearby water bodies. Response: Delineated wetlands within the Project Area are isolated wetlands, based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule (33 Code of Federal Regulations 328) defining Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Isolated wetlands are defined as lacking any surface water connection to other waterbodies and/or wetlands. As such, the proposed minor impacts to Wetlands 3 and 4 are not expected to have impacts on waters downstream, since they are isolated water features. Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 extend offsite, sloping downhill to the north. Wetland 3 drains overland westward to Wetland 1. Wetland 4 drains to the south through a culvert under State Highway 55. Comment 5: Pg 18, Table 12: What alternatives have been considered to avoid impacts to wetlands 3 and 4? If wetland impacts are necessary, city ordinance expresses a preference for mitigation to occur within city limits. Hennepin County in its role on the WCA TEP also request mitigation as close to the site of impact as possible. If necessary, project proposer should explore options first within the City of Corcoran, then within Hennepin County, then in areas of the bank service area outside of those geographies. Response: It is understood that mitigation within city limits is preferred, and that Hennepin County will also request mitigation as close to the site of impact as possible. Comment 6: Pg 21: Given limited habitat in project area, Hennepin County encourages project proposer to preserve existing tree lines as part of their landscaping plan. Response: Based on the preliminary design, no buildings or paved areas are proposed that would directly result in the removal of the northern tree line. Comment 7: Pg 22: We appreciate preservation of existing tree line. Response: Comment noted. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 5 Comment 8: Pg 23: Given the large amount of planned landscaping for this project, Hennepin County encourages project proposer to consider habitat value (e.g. minimize turfgrass, include native plants and trees, etc.) when drafting landscape plans. These types of landscapes are also lower maintenance over the long-term. Response: Comment noted. Comment 9: Pg 32: Proposer should provide more information about alternatives considered to avoid 0.8 acres of wetland impacts. Response: As described in response to Comment 2, the Proposer considered opportunities to avoid wetlands where feasible. Buildings are sited to entirely avoid Wetland 1 and Wetland 2. The EAW conservatively indicated that the Project would potentially impact Wetland 3 and Wetland 4. It is anticipated that impacts to these wetlands will be further evaluated and reduced during the development of the final design, and any unavoidable wetland impacts will be properly mitigated. Comment 10: Pg 35: Does proposed concept/right-of-way consider sufficient public right-of-way along Highway 55 should future roadway expansion be necessary at some point. This has been considered in various previous Highway 55 studies. Question for MnDOT. This wetland in particular ("wetland 4" along Highway 55) has the potential to play a role in addressing downstream water quality impairments in Lake Independence, and is identified in a study prioritizing projects that is a collaborative effort between Hennepin County and the Pioneer- Sarah watershed management commission. If the project proposer would be willing to consider protection/restoration of this wetland these two entities would have technical and financial assistance to contribute to such a project. It appears that by adjusting “Lot 2” and the southern stormwater pond slightly, impacts to “wetland 4” could be avoided. Response: As discussed in response to Comments 2 and 9, the potential wetland impacts described in the EAW are conservative estimates. It is anticipated that actual impacts to Wetland 4 will be minimized and potentially avoided, which will be considered during the development of the final design and permitting process. If impacted, proper mitigation planning will occur. Additionally, Wetland 4 is isolated, based on EPA definitions of WOTUS, meaning it is not connected via surface water to any other streams or wetlands. As such, impacts to downstream water resources will not be impacted. Comment 11: Pg 37: like to understand the drainage pathway between the project area and Lake Peter. If this project could help address that nutrient impairment through going above and beyond watershed requirements that would be valuable. Response: Stormwater runoff generated by the Project would drain to proposed stormwater ponds and roadway ditches. Wetland 4 drains to the south through a culvert under State Highway 55, but is considered an isolated wetland lacking surface water connection to other waterbodies and wetlands. Comment 12: Pg 42: Appears there is some existing gully erosion in the area of wetland 3 - assume the development plans will include stabilization of that area, but to the extent that impact to that area can be avoided and additional assistance is desired to help stabilize erosion Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 6 in that area, Hennepin County is happy to provide technical and potentially financial assistance to do that. Response: Comment noted. Comment 13: Pg 96: If project proposer has an interest in working with Hennepin County to restore some of the historic hydrologic connection between wetlands 1 and 3 on this site, this is something the county would be eager to discuss. Response: Comment noted. Comment 14: Pg 132: At some point in the future as this area redevelops, it may be prudent to have dedicated left, thru, and right-turn lanes along Pioneer Trail at the approach to CSAH 19. Response: Comment noted. It is anticipated that this intersection will be evaluated again in the future as this area redevelops. Comment 15: Pg 134, Traffic forecast intro: 20-yr growth forecast is recommended as a standard practice. This would be 2047 in this case (projected build complete 2027). Response: Traffic forecasts were developed using information from the City of Corcoran’s Comprehensive Plan, which includes year 2040 traffic forecasts. Therefore year 2040 forecasts were deemed most appropriate for this study. Comment 16: Pg 140: Summary tables should include LOS and 95% queues for all movements Response: The LOS results for each movement are shown in the Traffic Impact Study in Figures 6 and 7. The 95th percentile queue information is included in the level of service worksheets which are available from the City upon request. Letter 2: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Comment 1: General Comment: Due to the extensive amount of roof area on the proposed Project, this development offers the ideal landscape for hosting a solar power system. As this type of development is energy-Intensive, a solar power system would help to minimize the environmental effects of the Project and reduce its impact on the energy system. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2: Cover Types (Item 7): This section indicates that 10.39 acres of wetland will be impacted. However, Table 10 indicates there are 3.15 acres of wetlands within the Project area and Table 12 indicates that 0.8 acres of wetland will be potentially impacted. Please clarify the correct acreage of wetlands in the Project area, the acres of wetlands impacted by the Project, as well as wetland mitigation, location, and replacement ratio information. This section of the EAW indicates the Project proposes 6 acres of tree removal. As you may be aware, trees store carbon and transform it into biomass, making them an excellent source of climate change mitigation. Leaving the forested area intact and planning the development around the forested area or replacing the trees with a similar acreage of trees would help to reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas footprint, as well as make the Project site aesthetically Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 7 more pleasing. In addition, trees can reduce urban heat island effects, energy usage of nearby buildings, noise impacts and flooding. Trees can also improve air quality. The MPCA encourages the city of Corcoran and the Project proposer to rethink how to complete this development in a manner that is more environmentally beneficial. Response: The Project Area consists of open agricultural land. Minimal trees are present and are concentrated near the edges of the Project Area. It is anticipated that tree removal may be avoided or limited to select areas along the Project Area boundary, which will be confirmed as the final design develops. The cover type data included in Table 4 on page 5 was derived from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Land Cover Classification System data from 2007 which indicates wooded/forest areas are present in the western portion of the Project Area. Based on current site conditions, trees are not present within the western portion of the Project Area. Limited trees are present along the northern and eastern boundaries of the Project Area. It is anticipated that trees along the perimeter of the property will be preserved to the extent possible. Comment 3: Water Resources (Item 11): Chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state. For the proposed Project, the MPCA recommends smart salting practices for de-icing parking lots and driveways during the winter weather months. Additional resources are available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/statewide-chloride- resources. If the Project site has the ability to discharge to a water with construction-related impairments, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Project must specify additional erosion and sediment control Best management practices (BMPs) that are not mentioned in the EAW. These include immediately stabilizing soils that will not be worked for 7 or more days and providing a temporary sediment basin where 5 or more acres drain to a common location. Redundant (double) down gradient sediment controls will be required where soil disturbance within 50 feet of the existing buffers to wetlands on the site cannot be avoided. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW Permit) requires use of volume reduction practices (in lieu of wet sediment ponds) to reduce stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces reaching area waters, unless prohibited as described in the permit. The Project proposer is strongly encouraged to implement various green infrastructure practices to help meet the volume reduction requirements while at the same time providing other environment benefits. Questions regarding Construction Stormwater Permit requirements should be directed to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us. Response: Comment noted. A SWPPP will be prepared that will identify erosion and sediment control BMPs in accordance with MPCA requirements. Letter 3: Metropolitan Council Comment 1: Item 6 - Project Description: The floor square footage depicted in Table 2 (386,600 sq feet) differs from that shown in Figure 1, Concept Plan (566,600 sq feet). The two totals should be rectified for consistency. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 8 Response: The total gross building area for Proposed Lot 5 (Mini Storage/Self Storage) was incorrectly listed as 199,000 sq. ft. on Table 2. The correct gross building area for Proposed Lot 5 is 379,000 sq. ft. The total gross building area for the project is 566,600 sq. ft. Comment 2: Item 9 – Land Use: As indicated in the EAW, the proposed project will require a comprehensive plan amendment for the portion of the site with planned uses that are not part of the current light industrial designation. The EAW site is a small part of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #900 (this is a four-square- mile zone in the southwest part of Corcoran). The City’s 2040 comprehensive plan expects TAZ #900 to gain +130 households, +230 population, and +44 jobs during 2020-2040. Should the subject development proceed, a higher level of employment would result. City staff can request a TAZ allocation adjustment, an additional +200 jobs, by contacting Council Research staff. Response: Comment noted. Comment 3: Item 11 – Water Resources, Surface Water: We want to reiterate that the developer continues to work with the City, as Wetland Conservation Authority (WCA) and the Elm Creek Watershed District to limit impacts on wetlands. Additionally, stormwater must be pretreated before entering a wetland. The developer noted they will be working with the City as the WCA and will be applying for wetland banking credits. We encourage the developer to look within the same watershed/sub-watershed to do the wetland banking replacement. Finally, since the proposed development is within one mile of Peter Lake, which is impaired, and Jubert Lake, which is not impaired, we ask the developer to implement stormwater practices that would minimize negative impacts to these surface waters. Additionally, on page 5, the table states there are 12.94 acres of wetlands pre-construction but throughout the rest of the document, it is stated that there are 3.15 acres of wetland preconstruction. We ask the RGU to review and make clear the acreage of wetlands preconstruction. Response: The 12.94 acres of wetland listed in Table 4 on page 5 was derived from the MnDNR Land Cover Classification System data from 2007. The 2007 Land Cover Classification data attributed 11 acres to fallow hydric soils and 2 acres to medium-tall and short grasses; these two land cover types were most closely associated with the wetland cover type. The data used for Table 4 was the most recent available for land cover classification; however, this data does is not field located. The 3.15 acres of wetland referenced elsewhere in the EAW report is the most recent and accurate data on wetlands as field located and approved by the TEP, as noted in the January 6, 2020 Wetland Delineation Report. Comment 4: Item 11 – Water Resources, Wastewater: The EAW indicates wastewater service through use of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems and does not propose regional wastewater service at this time; and therefore, will not have an impact on the Metropolitan Disposal System. As indicated in the EAW, the method and timing of regional wastewater service to this area will be determined through a future study. Response: Comment noted. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 9 Comment 5: Item 11 – Water Resources, Water Supply: The following comments are offered for your consideration: • Any future nearby municipal/public water supply wells will need to be considered carefully. Use of the same shallow/buried artesian sand aquifer could have negative consequence for nearby wetlands and surface waters, as well as any homes and commercial enterprises not connected to the municipal system. • Wetlands appear to be part of a complex that pre-development would have connected to the wetland complexes and lake to the north. • Stormwater management and landscape management practices at the site will be crucial to maintaining the quality and quantity of shallow groundwater. Salt, pesticide, and any landscape irrigation on site could influence shallow groundwater. • The proposed site plan and future uses are likely carbon negative. Mitigation of the loss of open space, trees and shade, and permeable surfaces should be considered along with any wetland preservation and mitigation efforts. • The development could be a good opportunity for solar roof panel installation. • The future impervious surface estimates appear to be incorrect based on the proposed site plans. Building and pavement cover most of the site. Response: Comments noted. Buildings have been sited to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. Opportunities to further minimize wetland impacts will be considered during the final design and permitting process. The Project would result in minimal tree removal. The impervious surface area shown in Item 7 (Cover Types), Table 4, was estimated as 29.3 acres based on preliminary design plan and will confirmed as the final design develops. Comment 6: Item 19 – Cumulative Potential Effects: Council staff recommend the design and integration of solar panels at this proposed development to serve some portion of the electricity to be consumed by the industrial/warehouse floor space. Council staff recommend using the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab’s tool “PV Watts” for cross-evaluating solar cost, design, and production (https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/index.php). Response: Comment noted. Letter 3: Metropolitan Council Comment 1: Page 9, Geology. Well records near the development indicate that the surficial deposits in the project area consist of between 48 to 125 feet of clay. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2: Page, 12, Wetland Resources. This section describes the wetlands within the project area and Table 10: Wetlands within the Project Area indicates that there are 3.15 total acres of wetlands onsite, while Table 4: Cover Types on page 5 states that there are 12.94 acres of wetlands within the project area. Please update these sections with the correct total acres of wetlands and proposed wetland impacts. Response: As described above, the 12.94 acres of wetland listed in Table 4 on page 5 was derived from the MnDNR Land Cover Classification System data from 2007. The 2007 Land Cover Classification data attributed to 11 acres fallow hydric soils and 2 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 10 acres to medium-tall and short grasses; these two land cover types were most closely associated with the wetland cover type. The data used for Table 4 was the most recent available for land cover classification; however, this data does is not field located. The 3.15 acres of wetland referenced elsewhere is the most recent and accurate data on wetlands as field located and approved by the TEP, as noted in the January 6, 2020 Wetland Delineation Report. Comment 3: Page 13, Groundwater; Page 16, Water Appropriation. Given that there are wetlands on the site and that the surficial sediments are composed of clay, it is likely that there is perched water table in the project area. If there is a need to conduct dewatering in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons per day, then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be required for the dewatering. Response: It is understood that a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be required if it is necessary to conduct dewatering exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. Comment 4: Page 16, Stormwater. This section should identify what waterbody will receive stormwater flow from the project area after it leaves the site. Response: Stormwater runoff generated by the Project will be discharged to proposed stormwater ponds and roadway ditches. Comment 5: Page 16, Stormwater. Because there will be up to 21 acres of landscaping within the project area, the DNR recommends that the use of stormwater for the irrigation of landscaping be considered for this development. The use of stormwater from constructed stormwater features (not converted wetlands) does not require a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. Response: Comment noted. Comment 6: Page 16, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the Statewide Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use. Response: Comment noted. Comment 7: Page 17, Water Supply. If one of the water supply wells will pump more than 10,000 gallons of water per day (or one million gallons of water in a year), then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be needed for the use of the well. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Response to Comments May 26, 2022 11 Response: It is understood that a DNR Water Appropriation Permit would be required if water supply wells pump more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or one million gallons of water per year. Comment 8: Page 21, Rare Features. We encourage the development to use native seed mixes and plants in project stormwater features and landscaping in order to provide pollinator habitat. The Board of Soil and Water Resources’ website contains many great resources for choosing seed mixes and establishing native plants. Response: Comment noted. Comment 9: Page 26, Dust Control. Should water for dust control be taken from a well, stream, or lake in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one million gallons per year, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit Application will be needed for the use of the water. Response: Comment noted. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Comments and Letters May 26, 2022 Appendix A: Comments and Letters 1 Kendra Lindahl, AICP Subject:RE: [External] RE: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW From: Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 2:57 PM To: Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> Cc: Ashley Morello <Ashley.Morello@hennepin.us>; Karen Galles <Karen.Galles@hennepin.us> Subject: RE: [External] RE: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Hello Kendra, Our interdisciplinary staff in public works has had an opportunity to review the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW and we offer the following comments for consideration: Pg 5, Table 4: This is substantial wetland loss ‐ can the proposer demonstrate what they have done to avoid wetland impacts? Significant land cover proposed as lawn, landscaping and pavement ‐ Hennepin County encourages the proposer to reach out if they have interest on partnering to improve environmental outcomes from these cover types. Pg 8 & 9: City ordinance and state law require that project proposers make an effort to avoided and minimize impacts to ALL wetlands before they can be permitted. What has the proposer has done to avoid and minimize wetland impacts? Pg 11, Table 9: Hennepin County Environment & Energy Division has some financial resources to contribute to plan improvements (above regulatory requirements) that might benefit Jubert Lake or Peter Lake (both of which are included in the boundaries of subwatersheds that are currently priorities for water quality improvement. Pg 15: What are receiving waterbodies to which those existing wetlands and road ditches drain? Need to know this in order to fully understand impact on nearby water bodies. Pg 17, Section IV: Recommend clarification of the current extent of wetlands on the site? Table 4 lists a much higher wetland acreage? Pg 18, Table 12: What alternatives have been considered to avoid impacts to wetlands 3 and 4? If wetland impacts are necessary, city ordinance expresses a preference for mitigation to occur within city limits. Hennepin County in its role on the WCA TEP also request mitigation as close to the site of impact as possible. If necessary, project proposer should explore options first within the City of Corcoran, then within Hennepin County, then in areas of the bank service area outside of those geographies. Pg 21: Given limited habitat in project area, Hennepin County encourages project proposer to preserve existing tree lines as part of their landscaping plan. Pg 22: 2 We appreciate preservation of existing tree line Pg 23: Given the large amount of planned landscaping for this project, Hennepin County encourages project proposer to consider habitat value (e.g. minimize turfgrass, include native plants and trees, etc.) when drafting landscape plans. These types of landscapes are also lower maintenance over the long‐term. Pg 32: Proposer should provide more information about alternatives considered to avoid 0.8 acres of wetland impacts. Pg 35: Does proposed concept/right‐of‐way consider sufficient public right‐of‐way along Highway 55 should future roadway expansion be necessary at some point. This has been considered in various previous Highway 55 studies. Question for MnDOT This wetland in particular ("wetland 4" along Highway 55) has the potential to play a role in addressing downstream water quality impairments in Lake Independence, and is identified in a study prioritizing projects that is a collaborative effort between Hennepin County and the Pioneer‐Sarah watershed management commission. If the project proposer would be willing to consider protection/restoration of this wetland these two entities would have technical and financial assistance to contribute to such a project. It appears that by adjusting “Lot 2” and the southern stormwater pond slightly, impacts to “wetland 4” could be avoided. Pg 37: I'd like to understand the drainage pathway between the project area and Lake Peter. If this project could help address that nutrient impairment through going above and beyond watershed requirements that would be valuable. Pg 42: Appears there is some existing gully erosion in the area of wetland 3 ‐ assume the development plans will include stabilization of that area, but to the extent that impact to that area can be avoided and additional assistance is desired to help stabilize erosion in that area, Hennepin County is happy to provide technical and potentially financial assistance to do that. Pg 96: If project proposer has an interest in working with Hennepin County to restore some of the historic hydrologic connection between wetlands 1 and 3 on this site, this is something the county would be eager to discuss. Pg 132: At some point in the future as this area redevelops, it may be prudent to have dedicated left, thru, and right‐turn lanes along Pioneer Trail at the approach to CSAH 19. Pg 134, Traffic forecast intro: 20‐yr growth forecast is recommended as a standard practice. This would be 2047 in this case (projected build complete 2027). Pg 140: Summary tables should include LOS and 95% queues for all movements Please reach out to Karen Galles directly for any environmental related comments Karen.galles@hennepin.us / 612‐235‐0712 Thank you for the opportunity to review and your consideration! 3 Jason Jason Gottfried Transportation Planner Transportation Planning Office: 612-596-0394 Cell: 612-719-8073 jason.gottfried@hennepin.us Hennepin County Public Works 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 (working remotely) From: Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:21 PM To: Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> Cc: Ashley Morello <Ashley.Morello@hennepin.us> Subject: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Hello Kendra, Hope all is well with you. We received the latest EQB monitor notice for the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park and would appreciate a copy or link to the EAW for our review when you have a chance? I was not able to locate on the city’s website Thanks! Jason Jason Gottfried Transportation Planner Transportation Planning Office: 612-596-0394 Cell: 612-719-8073 jason.gottfried@hennepin.us Hennepin County Public Works 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 (working remotely) Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ***CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.*** 4 Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. April 28, 2022 Kendra Lindahl City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Re: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Kendra Lindahl: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park project (Project) located in Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Project consists of development of a new industrial park. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. General Comment Due to the extensive amount of roof area on the proposed Project, this development offers the ideal landscape for hosting a solar power system. As this type of development is energy-Intensive, a solar power system would help to minimize the environmental effects of the Project and reduce its impact on the energy system. Cover Types (Item 7 ) • This section indicates that 10.39 acres of wetland will be impacted. However, Table 10 indicates there are 3.15 acres of wetlands within the Project area and Table 12 indicates that 0.8 acres of wetland will be potentially impacted. Please clarify the correct acreage of wetlands in the Project area, the acres of wetlands impacted by the Project, as well as wetland mitigation, location, and replacement ratio information. • This section of the EAW indicates the Project proposes 6 acres of tree removal. As you may be aware, trees store carbon and transform it into biomass, making them an excellent source of climate change mitigation. Leaving the forested area intact and planning the development around the forested area or replacing the trees with a similar acreage of trees would help to reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas footprint, as well as make the Project site aesthetically more pleasing. In addition, trees can reduce urban heat island effects, energy usage of nearby buildings, noise impacts and flooding. Trees can also improve air quality. The MPCA encourages the city of Corcoran and the Project proposer to rethink how to complete this development in a manner that is more environmentally beneficial. Kendra Lindahl Page 2 April 28, 2022 Water Resources (Item 11) • Chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state. For the proposed Project, the MPCA recommends smart salting practices for de-icing parking lots and driveways during the winter weather months. Additional resources are available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/statewide-chloride-resources. • If the Project site has the ability to discharge to a water with construction-related impairments, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Project must specify additional erosion and sediment control Best management practices (BMPs) that are not mentioned in the EAW. These include immediately stabilizing soils that will not be worked for 7 or more days and providing a temporary sediment basin where 5 or more acres drain to a common location. • Redundant (double) down gradient sediment controls will be required where soil disturbance within 50 feet of the existing buffers to wetlands on the site cannot be avoided. • The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW Permit) requires use of volume reduction practices (in lieu of wet sediment ponds) to reduce stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces reaching area waters, unless prohibited as described in the permit. The Project proposer is strongly encouraged to implement various green infrastructure practices to help meet the volume reduction requirements while at the same time providing other environment benefits. Questions regarding Construction Stormwater Permit requirements should be directed to Roberta Getman at 507-206-2629 or Roberta.Getman@state.mn.us. We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please provide your specific responses to our comments and notice of decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at Karen.kromar@state.mn.us or by telephone at 651-757-2508. Sincerely, Karen Kromar This document has been electronically signed. Karen Kromar Planner Principal Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division KK:rs cc: Dan Card, MPCA, St. Paul Roberta Getman, MPCA, Rochester Bill Wilde, MPCA, St. Paul. Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services) 390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904 metrocouncil.org An Equal Opportunity Employer May 5, 2022 Kendra Lindahl, City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 RE: City of Corcoran - Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) – Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Metropolitan Council Review No. 22742-1 Metropolitan Council District No. 1 Dear Kendra Lindahl: The Metropolitan Council received the EAW for the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park project in Corcoran on March 29, 2022. The proposed project is in southwest Corcoran, at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Pioneer Trail. The proposed development consists of approximately 56 acres with 10 buildings and a new public road. The plans include gas/convenience, offices, retail, warehousing, light manufacturing, and mini storage/self-storage. The staff review finds that the EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Item 6 – Project Description (Eric Wojchik, 651-602-1330) The floor square footage depicted in Table 2 (386,600 sq feet) differs from that shown in Figure 1, Concept Plan (566,600 sq feet). The two totals should be rectified for consistency. Item 9 – Land Use (Freya Thamman,651-602-1750, Todd Graham, 651-602-1322) As indicated in the EAW, the proposed project will require a comprehensive plan amendment for the portion of the site with planned uses that are not part of the current light industrial designation. The EAW site is a small part of Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) #900 (this is a four-square- mile zone in the southwest part of Corcoran). The City’s 2040 comprehensive plan expects TAZ #900 to gain +130 households, +230 population, and +44 jobs during 2020-2040. Should the subject development proceed, a higher level of employment would result. City staff can request a TAZ allocation adjustment, an additional +200 jobs, by contacting Council Research staff. Item 11 – Water Resources, Surface Water (Maureen Hoffman, 651-602-1279) We want to reiterate that the developer continues to work with the City, as Wetland Conservation Authority (WCA) and the Elm Creek Watershed District to limit impacts on wetlands. Additionally, stormwater must be pretreated before entering a wetland. The developer noted they will be working with the City as the WCA and will be applying for wetland banking credits. We encourage the developer to look within the same watershed/sub-watershed to do the wetland banking replacement. Finally, since the proposed development is within one mile of Peter Lake, which is Page - 2 | May 5, 2022 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL impaired, and Jubert Lake, which is not impaired, we ask the developer to implement stormwater practices that would minimize negative impacts to these surface waters. Additionally, on page 5, the table states there are 12.94 acres of wetlands pre-construction but throughout the rest of the document, it is stated that there are 3.15 acres of wetland preconstruction. We ask the RGU to review and make clear the acreage of wetlands preconstruction. Item 11 – Water Resources, Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1119) The EAW indicates wastewater service through use of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems and does not propose regional wastewater service at this time; and therefore, will not have an impact on the Metropolitan Disposal System. As indicated in the EAW, the method and timing of regional wastewater service to this area will be determined through a future study. Item 11 – Water Resources, Water Supply (John Clark, 651-602-1452) The following comments are offered for your consideration: • Any future nearby municipal/public water supply wells will need to be considered carefully. Use of the same shallow/buried artesian sand aquifer could have negative consequence for nearby wetlands and surface waters, as well as any homes and commercial enterprises not connected to the municipal system. • Wetlands appear to be part of a complex that pre-development would have connected to the wetland complexes and lake to the north. • Stormwater management and landscape management practices at the site will be crucial to maintaining the quality and quantity of shallow groundwater. Salt, pesticide, and any landscape irrigation on site could influence shallow groundwater. • The proposed site plan and future uses are likely carbon negative. Mitigation of the loss of open space, trees and shade, and permeable surfaces should be considered along with any wetland preservation and mitigation efforts. • The development could be a good opportunity for solar roof panel installation. • The future impervious surface estimates appear to be incorrect based on the proposed site plans. Building and pavement cover most of the site. Item 19 – Cumulative Potential Effects (Eric Wojchik, 651-602-1330) Council staff recommend the design and integration of solar panels at this proposed development to serve some portion of the electricity to be consumed by the industrial/warehouse floor space. Council staff recommend using the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab’s tool “PV Watts” for cross-evaluating solar cost, design, and production (https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/index.php). This concludes the Council’s review of the EAW. The Council will not take formal action on the EAW. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Freya Thamman, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1750 or via email at Freya.Thamman@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Judy Johnson, Metropolitan Council District 1 Freya Thamman, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Corcoran\Letters\Corcoran 2022 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Complete 22742-1.docx Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email Region 3 Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 May 5, 2022 Kendra Lindahl, City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Dear Kendra Lindahl, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW located in Hennepin County. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration: 1. Page 9, Geology. Well records near the development indicate that the surficial deposits in the project area consist of between 48 to 125 feet of clay. 2. Page, 12, Wetland Resources. This section describes the wetlands within the project area and Table 10: Wetlands within the Project Area indicates that there are 3.15 total acres of wetlands onsite, while Table 4: Cover Types on page 5 states that there are 12.94 acres of wetlands within the project area. Please update these sections with the correct total acres of wetlands and proposed wetland impacts. 3. Page 13, Groundwater; Page 16, Water Appropriation. Given that there are wetlands on the site and that the surficial sediments are composed of clay, it is likely that there is perched water table in the project area. If there is a need to conduct dewatering in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons per day, then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be required for the dewatering. 4. Page 16, Stormwater. This section should identify what waterbody will receive stormwater flow from the project area after it leaves the site. 5. Page 16, Stormwater. Because there will be up to 21 acres of landscaping within the project area, the DNR recommends that the use of stormwater for the irrigation of landscaping be considered for this development. The use of stormwater from constructed stormwater features (not converted wetlands) does not require a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. 6. Page 16, Stormwater. The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the Statewide Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use. 7.Page 17, Water Supply. If one of the water supply wells will pump more than 10,000 gallons of water per day (or one million gallons of water in a year), then a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be needed for the use of the well. 8.Page 21, Rare Features. We encourage the development to use native seed mixes and plants in project stormwater features and landscaping in order to provide pollinator habitat. The Board of Soil and Water Resources’ website contains many great resources for choosing seed mixes and establishing native plants. 9.Page 26, Dust Control. Should water for dust control be taken from a well, stream, or lake in volumes that exceed 10,000 gallons per day, or one million gallons per year, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit Application will be needed for the use of the water. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us CC: Jon Rausch, Landspec Fund II, LLC Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Resolution Declaring Finding of “No Need” May 26, 2022 Appendix B: Resolution Declaring Finding of “No Need” Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Environmental Assessment Worksheet May 26, 2022 Appendix C: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 1 July 2013 version ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 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 addresses 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: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park 2. Proposer: Landspec Fund II, LLC Contact person: Jon Rausch Title: Address: 5229 Minnetoga Terrace City, State, ZIP: Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone: 612-685-8288 Fax: Email: jon.rausch@cushwake.com 3. Responsible Governmental Unit: City of Corcoran Contact person: Kendra Lindahl, AICP Title: City Planner Address: 8200 County Road 116 City, State, ZIP: Corcoran, MN 55340 Phone: 612-638-0225 Fax: Email: klindahl@landform.net 4. Reason for EAW Preparation Required: Discretionary: EIS Scoping Citizen petition ☒ Mandatory EAW RGU discretion Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): EAW, Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subpart 14 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Facilities Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 2 5. Project Location: 6210 Pioneer Trail County: Hennepin City/Township: Corcoran PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): SE ¼, SW ¼, Township 23, Range 19 Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River (20) GPS Coordinates: 45.06668366654562, -93.61842390950972 Tax Parcel Numbers: 32-119-23-34-0013, 32-119-23-34-0007 32-119-23-43-0005, 32-119-23-43-0006 At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project; • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and • Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post- construction site plan. Attachments: Appendix A: Figures • Figure 1: Concept Plan • Figure 2: Soil Classifications • Figure 3: Water Resources Map • Figure 4: County Well Index • Figure 5: Potential Wetland Impacts • Figure 6: Hennepin County Location Map • Figure 7: Cover Type Map • Figure 8: USGS Topographic Map • Figure 9: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Appendix B: Wetland Delineation and WCA Notice of Decision Appendix C: FEMA FIRMette Appendix D: Phase I ESA Executive Summary Appendix E: DNR NHIS Request for Concurrence Letter Appendix F: Traffic Impact Study Appendix G: Feasibility Study Appendix H: SHPO Response Letter Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 3 6. Project Description a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). The Pioneer Trail Business Park is a proposed five lot industrial/business park with 10 buildings and a new public road located on 56.54 acres at the northeast corner of Highway 55 and Pioneer Trail. 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. Landspec Fund II, LLC propose a new industrial park named “Pioneer Trail Business Park”. The project will be located in the City of Corcoran on 56.65 acres, according to the proposer’s submitted documents. The project will create five lots and 10 buildings for gas/convenience, offices, retail, warehousing, light manufacturing, warehouse and mini storage/self storage uses. Six buildings are proposed for the mini storage/self storage use on one 27.3 acre lot, totaling 199,000 gross square feet of building area. Four buildings are proposed for light industrial, office and commercial uses totaling 187,600 gross square feet of building area. These four buildings are proposed on four lots ranging in size from 2.8 to 8.3 acres. Existing Site Conditions A parcel tabulation is provided below and parcels will be referred to as Parcel A, Parcel B, Parcel C and Parcel D. The project is located on four separate parcels in the city of Corcoran. Parcel B is vacant and the remaining parcels are used for agricultural purposes. Wetlands are present on the site and shown the Concept Plan does not show plans for wetland preservation. Table 1: Pioneer Trail Business Park Parcel Areas Parcel PID Address Total Parcel Acres Parcel A 32-119-23-34-0013 6210 Pioneer Trail 9.81 Parcel B 32-119-23-34-0007 22733 Wagon Wheel Lane 0.99 Parcel C 32-119-23-43-0005 52 Address Unassigned 26.03 Parcel D 32-119-23-43-0006 52 Address Unassigned 19.71 TOTAL 56.54 Concept Plan Figure 1, Appendix A shows the Concept Plan for this project. The Concept Plan shows a preliminary concept for five lots, a new public street, stormwater ponds, buildings, drive aisles, loading docks, parking and septic pad locations. The proposer has applied to the City of Corcoran for a PUD Concept Plan Review and the City Council generally indicated support for the concept. The attached Concept Plan is consistent with the plan submitted to the City by the proposer. The project will include multiple commercial and industrial businesses in addition to the mini storage/self storage facility. The mini storage/self storage facility will make up the majority of the development with six buildings totaling approximately 199,000 gross square feet of building area on a 27.3 acre parcel. Specific users have not been identified for the remaining four proposed buildings. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 4 Table 2: Lot Tabulation Description Proposed Lot Lot Width Description Number of Buildings Gross Building Area 1 545 ft. Gas/Convenience 1 10,300 sq. ft. 2 335 ft. Office/Retail 1 11,300 sq. ft. 3 785 ft. Office Warehouse/Light Manufacturing/Distribution 1 66,000 sq. ft. 4 1,045 ft. Office Warehouse/Light Manufacturing/Distribution 1 100,000 sq. ft. 5 1,890 ft. Mini Storage/Self Storage 6 379,000 sq. ft. Infrastructure and Site Improvements A new public road is proposed with the development, providing access to the site from Pioneer Trail to the west. The public road is proposed in accordance with the City of Corcoran’s plans for the Southwest District. The Feasibility Study in Appendix A indicates a traffic signal control is required at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Highway 55, in addition to dedicated turn lanes on southbound Pioneer Trail. Dedicated turn lane improvements are also required at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and the new public road. The site is located within a future study area for a proposed trunk sanitary sewer system. Public water and sewer are not available to the site and are not likely to be available within two years. While development is typically restricted without access to these services, the Corcoran City Council indicated support for development in advance of these services being available to the site. The proposer plans to provide septic and well for the development until it can connect to municipal services when they are available in the future. The Feasibility Study notes the site is in a future well exploration area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. While the City has no plans to install a well in the near term, the Feasibility Study recommends that a lot within the site be platted and deeded to the City for future water well exploration. The Concept Plan shows two large stormwater ponds for the development. Construction and Timing of Site Development Activities The site will be graded for the construction of streets, parking, buildings and stormwater ponds. Phases are anticipated to develop based on market conditions. c. Project magnitude Table 3: Project Magnitude Description Number Total project acreage 56.54 Linear project length Not applicable Number and type of residential units Not applicable Residential building area (in square feet) Not applicable Commercial building area (in square feet) 21,600 Industrial building area (in square feet) 76,000 Institutional building area (in square feet) Not applicable Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 5 Description Number Other uses – Self-Storage (in square feet) 199,000 Structure height(s) Limited to 45 ft. 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 project will allow development of additional commercial and industrial businesses in Corcoran and bring a high quality business park to Corcoran. 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 present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes ☒ No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. 7. Cover Types The before cover types in Table 4 correspond with the cover types shown in Figure 7 in Appendix A. There is a discrepancy between the area of existing wetlands referenced in Table 4 below and the 3.15 acres of existing wetland referenced elsewhere in this report. MnDNR Land Cover Classification System data from 2007 was used for the before acres in Table 4 below; however, this data is not field located. The 3.15 acres of existing wetland referenced elsewhere in this report is the most recent and accurate data on wetlands that was field located and approved by the TEP, as noted in the January 6, 2020 Wetland Delineation Report. Table 4: Cover Types Cover Types Before (acres) After (acres) Wetlands (medium tall grass and short grasses) 12.94 2.55 Deep Water/Streams N/A 0 Wooded/Forest 6.73 0 Brush/Grassland (grassland)(green short grasses) 5.25 0.5 Cropland (fallow)(hayfield) 31.52 0 Lawn/Landscaping N/A 20.89 Impervious Surface (bldgs. Pavement) 0.03 29.3 Stormwater Pond N/A 3.4 Other (describe) N/A N/A TOTAL 56.64 acres 8. Permits and Approvals 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 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 6 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 5: Permits and Approvals Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Waters Act – Wetland Permit To be applied for, if required State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Construction Permit To be applied for Demolition Notification Checklist To be applied for Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Abandonment of Water Wells To be applied for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if needed Local Hennepin County Right-of-way Excavation Permit To be applied for, if needed City of Corcoran EAW / EIS Need Decision Draft prepared Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sketch Plan Reviewed Wetland Conservation Act (Boundary Approval/Replacement Plan) Wetland delineation approved, mitigation plan to be applied for Rezoning Not Applicable Preliminary PUD Development Plan To be applied for Preliminary Plat To be applied for Final PUD Development Plan To be applied for Final Plat To be applied for Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if needed Building Permits To be applied for Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission Stormwater Permit, Erosion Control, and Site Plan Approval To be applied for Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 7 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. The existing land use of the project site is agricultural. A small portion of the site consists of wetlands. Adjacent parcels north of the site have agricultural and farm homestead land uses. There are single family residential land uses to the northeast and northwest of the site, and to the west across Pioneer Trail. Properties adjacent to the east of the site have light-industrial land uses. Properties to the south are located across Highway 55 in the City of Medina and have vacant or residential land uses. Table 6 below provides an inventory of existing land uses adjacent to the project site. Table 6: Adjacent Area Land Uses Adjacent Use Location Agricultural North of the Parcels C and D Residential Homes North of Parcel A and B Northeast of Parcel D Light Industrial East of Parcel D Highway 55 South of the development 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 City of Corcoran’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (Figure 9, Appendix A) designates the project parcels as Light Industrial. The Light Industrial category is intended to provide areas for manufacturing, warehousing, automotive, trucking, office and other related industrial uses. The project consists of commercial and light-industrial uses. Parcel A is proposed for a gas/convenience use which may require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to guide the parcel as Commercial. The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes maps that identify wetlands and ecologically significant areas and a set of goals and policies that focus on preservation and protection of important and high-quality areas as development occurs. The Wetland Locations and Classifications map from the Introduction and Community Background chapter in the Comprehensive Plan the indicates that Parcels B and C contain wetlands but the site does not contain any ecologically significant natural areas. The Comprehensive Plan also shows the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and is part of the Future Study Area for the sanitary sewer staging plan. The City’s Comprehensive Plan also identifies a potential future well exploration area in the vicinity of the site. The Feasibility Study in Appendix G indicates that the City does not have near term plans to install a well in this area but may eventually install a municipal well in southwest Corcoran. The Feasibility Study requests an individual lot be platted and dedicated to the City for future water well exploration. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 8 Stormwater ponds will be required to comply with State, watershed and local stormwater standards. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. Parcels A, C and D are zoned Light Industrial (I-1) district and Parcel B is zoned Urban Reserve (UR) district. The site is located within the City of Corcoran’s Southwest District that establishes a “gateway” to the City around the intersection of Highway 55 and County Road 19 west of this site. The Southwest District plan provides direction for site development, streets and public amenities in the area surrounding the intersection of Highway 55 and County Road 19 to the west of this site. The Southwest District plan guides that access for both business and industrial uses shall be from a new public road, which the proposer has provided in their Concept Plan. There are four wetlands on the site which are regulated by the Wetland Overlay District. The Wetland Overlay District provides standards for wetland protection and buffering. Table 7: Project Parcel Zoning Parcel Zoning Parcel A Light Industrial (I-1) Parcel B Urban Reserve (UR) Parcel C Light Industrial (I-1) Parcel D Light Industrial (I-1) b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The project is consistent with the goals and policies stated in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which guides the site for light industrial uses. The proposed project is consistent with the guiding for Parcels B, C and D. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 on Parcel A are planned for gas/convenience and office/retail uses which may not be compatible with the light industrial designation. As shown on the Concept Plan, the project appears to preserve two wetlands but will impact the other two wetlands. Where wetlands are altered or destroyed, the mitigation must be provided to recreate the functions and values of the wetland. The development is within Stage 3 (2030-2035) of the sanitary sewer staging plan and in the Future Study Area for sanitary sewer. Development in the MUSA is deemed premature until sanitary sewer and water are available. The City Council will need to grant either a variance or waiver through the PUD process to allow development in advance of these services. The Zoning Ordinance regulates that off-street loading areas be screened from adjacent residentially zoned or guided property and will impact the loading areas on proposed Lots 3 and 4. The Southwest District Design Guidelines indicate that future driveways and other direct access from new developments to Highway 55 shall not be permitted. Access to the business park is provided through the new public road that connects with Pioneer Trail. The Southwest District Guidelines show the public road extending through the site to a connection with Rolling Hills Road to the east. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 9 c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. The project will not extend sanitary sewer and water which are not yet available to the site and development is considered premature without access to these services. Well and septic systems will be provided to proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 until the development is able to connect with municipal services. Preserved wetlands on this site will be consistent with City ordinances pertaining to wetland protection and buffering. The gas/convenience and office/retail uses may require a comprehensive plan amendment from Light Industrial to Commercial. The comprehensive plan amendment is required when a user is determined and the need for change is confirmed. 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. The surficial and bedrock geology for Hennepin County has been mapped in the Minnesota Geological Survey’s Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County 1. Surficial deposits in the Project Area are comprised of loam to clay loam diamict with scattered pebbles, cobbles, and rare boulders. On average, the composition of this very coarse-grained sand fraction is 41 percent shale. The surrounding area is also comprised of patchy sections of organic detritus and organic clayey silt to sand. The bedrock geology of the western portion of the Project Area consists of St. Lawrence Formation, which is dolomitic, feldspathic siltstone with interbedded, very fine-grained sandstone and shale. The eastern portion of the Project Area consists of Jordan Sandstone, a medium- to coarse-grained, friable quartzose sandstone, and Mazomanie Formation, a fine- to medium-grained, cross-stratified, generally friable, quartzose sandstone. The estimated depth from the land surface to the bedrock surface is approximately 326 to 400 in the west portion of the Project Area and approximately 300 to 325 in the eastern portion of the Project Area. According to the surrounding water well logs on the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Minnesota Well Index (MWI)2, no wellhead protection areas or drinking water supply management areas are within the Project Area. The Loretto Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) and Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) are located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Project Area and would not be affected by the Project. The drinking water supply management area vulnerability ranking is classified as low. No known karst or sinkhole features are present within the Project Area. 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 1 Steenberg, Julia R.; Bauer, Emily J; Chandler, V.W.; Retzler, Andrew J; Berthold, Angela J; Lively, Richard S. (2018). C- 45, Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/200919. 2 MDH. Minnesota Well Index. July 15, 2019. https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/mwi/ Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 10 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. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the Project Area is comprised of six soil types. Soil within the Project Area is associated mainly with moraines, hillslopes, and lake plains. The soil types include Lerdal loam (moraines, somewhat poorly drained), Hamel/overwash-Hamel complex (ground moraines, somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained), Angus- Kilkenny complex (Hills on moraines, moderately well drained to well drained), and Lester-Kilkenny complex (Hillslopes, moraines, ground moraines, and lake plains; moderately well drained to well drained). Figure 2, Appendix A identifies soil classifications within and in the vicinity of the Project Area. Table 8 lists hydrologic soil groups. The four hydrologic soil groups are: • Group B: Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained, or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. • Group C: Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. • Group D: Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Table 8: NRCS Soils within the Project Area Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Percent Slopes Hydrologic Soil Group Erosion Rating Acres Approx. Percent of Project Area L40B Angus-Kilkenny complex 2-6 B/C/D Not Rated 21.6 38.3 L41C2 Lester-Kilkenny complex 6-10 C/D Moderate 15.5 27.4 L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex 0-3 C/D Not Rated 8.5 15.1 L41D2 Lester-Kilkenny complex 10-16 C Moderate 6.7 11.8 L35A Lerdal loam 1-3 C/D Not Rated 4.2 7.4 L41E Lester-Kilkenny complex 16-22 C Not Rated 0.0 0.1 Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Hennepin County Soil Survey Topography within the Project Area is generally flat with no slopes greater than 22 percent identified. The soil composition overall has a slower infiltration rate, resulting in a higher runoff potential. In areas with steep slopes, special consideration will be given to prevent erosion during construction, such as erosion control blankets, along with vegetation establishment to permanently stabilize side slopes and any areas impacted as a result of construction. 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 risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 11 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. Surface Waters A review of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) geospatial data determined that no lakes, trout streams or trout lakes 3, wildlife lakes 4, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes5, or outstanding resource value waters 6 are present within the Project Area. Based on a review of Hennepin County geospatial data, no county ditches are located within the project area. Peter Lake (North Bay) is located approximately 0.25 miles southeast of the Project Area, south of Highway 55, and Jubert Lake is located approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project Area. Figure 3, Appendix A identifies surface waters in the vicinity of the Project Area. DNR Public Waters No DNR Public Waters and Watercourses are located within the Project Area (Figure 3, Appendix A). Table 9 lists DNR Public Waters and Public Watercourses within one mile of the Project Area7. The proposed project would not encroach into these DNR Public Waters and Watercourses. Table 9: DNR Public Waters within One Mile of the Project Area Name Public Water ID Type Jubert 27016500 Public Water Basin Morin 27042300 Public Water Basin Peter (Main Basin) 27014701 Public Water Basin Peter (North Bay) 27014702 Public Water Basin Scott 27110200 Public Water Wetland Unnamed Basin 27042200 Public Water Wetland Unnamed Basin 27049400 Public Water Wetland 3 DNR. State Designated Trout Streams, Minnesota. Date of content: May 14, 2020. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-trout- stream-designations 4 DNR. Designated Wildlife Lakes. Date of content: December 8, 2016. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-designated- wildlife-lakes 5 DNR Migratory Waterfowl Feeding and Resting Areas. Date of content: December 30, 2016. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-migratory-waterfowl-areas 6 DNR. Lakes of Biological Significance. Date of content: July 7, 2020. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-lakes-of- biological-signific 7 DNR. Public Waters Basin and Watercourse Delineations. Date of content: June 10, 2020. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-mn-public-waters Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 12 Name Public Water ID Type Unnamed Basin 27049500 Public Water Wetland Unnamed Basin 27049700 Public Water Wetland Unnamed Basin 27049800 Public Water Wetland Unnamed Basin 27049900 Public Water Wetland Rush Creek, South Fork M-062-004-002 Public Watercourse Unnamed Watercourse M-062-004-002-004- 001 Public Watercourse Unnamed Watercourse M-064-0046-002 Public Watercourse Wetland Resources Based on a review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data, time-lapsed aerial imagery, and a wetland delineation performed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on November 14, 2019, four wetlands are present within the Project Area (Figure 3, Appendix A). Wetland 1 is located along the western boundary of the Project Area and consists of a shallow marsh and partially farmed seasonally flooded basin wetland. Wetland 1 is classified as a temporarily flooded, emergent palustrine wetland (PEM1A) in the NWI database. Wetland 2 is located along the northern border of the Project Area and consists of a farmed seasonally flooded basin wetland. Wetland 2 is identified in the NWI database as a temporarily/seasonally flooded, emergent, farmed palustrine wetland PEM1Af/PEM1C wetland. Wetland 3 is located near the center of the Project Area and consists of a shallow marsh and partially farmed seasonally flooded basin wetland. Wetland 3 is classified in the NWI database as a PEM1A wetland. Wetland 4 is located along the southern border of the Project Area near Highway 55 and consists of a shallow marsh and partially farmed seasonally flooded basin wetland. Wetland 4 was not identified within the NWI. Table 10 summarizes wetlands delineated in the project area. Figure 3, Appendix A identifies wetlands and other aquatic resources within or in the vicinity of the Project Area. Appendix B includes the wetland delineation report and WCA Notice of Decision. Table 10: Wetlands within the Project Area Wetland ID Circular 39* Cowardin Eggers & Reed Dominant Vegetation Size (Acres Onsite) 1 1/3 PEM1Af/ PEM1C Seasonally Flooded Basin, Shallow Marsh Reed canary grass, cattail, smartweed, scattered sedges 1.75 2 1 PEM1Af Seasonally Flooded Basin Sparse vegetation, field nutsedge 0.60 3 1/3 PEM1Af/ PEM1C Seasonally Flooded Basin, Shallow Marsh Cattail, reed canary grass, smartweed 0.33 4 1/3 PEM1Af/ PEM1C Seasonally Flooded Basin, Shallow Marsh Cattail, reed canary grass, sedges 0.47 *Type 1 wetland types include seasonally flooded basins or flats; Type 3 wetlands indicate inland shallow fresh marshes. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 13 MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List No 303d impaired waters designated by the MPCA8 were identified within the Project Area based on the draft 2022 impaired waters list. One impaired water, Peter Lake (North Bay), Assessment Unit Identification (AUID) 27-0147-02, is located within one mile of the site, approximately 0.25 miles southeast of the Project Area (Figure 3, Appendix A). Peter Lake (North Bay) is impaired for nutrients. Floodway/Floodplain A FIRMette was generated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) mapping tool, which indicates that the project area is located with Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard. Appendix C includes the FEMA FIRMette for the Project Area. 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. 1) Depth to groundwater Based on a review of domestic water wells located near the Project Area, the depth to static water level ranges from 78 feet and 140 feet. 2) MDH Wellhead Protection Area The Project Area is not within a MDH Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) or Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)9. The Loretto DWSMA and WHPA are located approximately 0.75 miles southwest of the Project Area, south of Highway 55. The vulnerability ranking of this DWSMA is low. Figure 4 in Appendix A illustrates the location of the Loretto DWSMA and WHPA in relation to the Project Area. 3) Onsite and/or nearby wells A search of the MDH MWI database indicates that there are no wells present within the Project Area 10. Braun Intertec Corporation completed site reconnaissance as a part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and no indications of wells were observed at the site at the time of the site visit. If any wells are wells are found during construction, they will be sealed and abandoned in compliance with MDH regulations by a licensed contractor. Eight wells within a 500-foot radius of the Project area. Table 11 tabulates documented wells within 8 MPCA. Impaired Waters Viewer (IWAV). Data is based on Draft 2022 Impaired Waters List. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/impaired-waters-viewer-iwav 9 MDH. Source Water Protection Web Map Viewer. https://mdh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8b0db73d3c95452fb45231900e977be4 10 MDH. Minnesota Well Index. July 15, 2019. https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/mwi/ Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 14 500 feet of the Project Area based on the MDH CWI database. Figure 4 in Appendix A identifies the locations of wells in the vicinity of the project. Table 11: CWI Wells within 500 feet of the Project Area Well ID Use Type Status Elevation (msl ft.) Well Depth (ft.) Static Water Level (ft.) 248501 Public supply/ non- community, non-transient Active 1049 Unknown Unknown 544660 Domestic Active 1016 202 78 583329 Domestic Active 1061 205 140 649309 Domestic Active 1060 264 130 643977 Domestic Active 1050 180 123 764194 Domestic Active 1051 170 130 155069 Domestic Active 1030 291 120 149424 Domestic Active 1028 203 110 b. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. 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. A feasibility study 11 was completed to evaluate the wastewater treatment options for the Project. Based on the findings of this study, it was determined that connecting the Project to the existing sanitary sewer and wastewater system would not be viable. The following paragraphs summarize the findings of the feasibility study. The closest existing City of Corcoran sanitary sewer is located approximately three miles east of the Project Area. The distance alone would render connection to this system impractical and not cost effective. Furthermore, the sewer system at that location was not designed to include wastewater from this proposed development. In the City’s previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, wastewater from this Project and the surrounding area of Southwest Corcoran was anticipated to be served via a connection into Medina, which borders Highway 55 to the south of the Project Area. However, during the time that the City prepared the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, it was determined that Medina had slowed their staging of sewer system development in areas towards southwest Corcoran, and that both Medina and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) no longer envisioned wastewater from southwest Corcoran being directed through Medina (and generally eastward along Highway 55). For this reason, the City of Corcoran’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan states that the method and timing of regional wastewater service to Southwest Corcoran would be determined through future study. The potential options for regional service would be longer-term (over ten years) and very high-cost options, resulting in the need for future study. 11 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. DRAFT Highway 55 Infrastructure Feasibility Study. March 2022. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 15 Another option that was considered was to connect to the City of Loretto’s wastewater system. The City of Loretto recently transitioned from operating their own permitted wastewater treatment facility to a regionalized connection, i.e., they connected into the Independence wastewater forcemain, which is part of a local regional system that ultimately discharges into the regional sewer system of the Twin Cities area (managed by MCES). Operation of the Independence forcemain and the local regional system is governed by a Quad-City Agreement amongst Loretto, Greenfield, Independence, and Medina. Connection of the proposed development into Loretto and the wider regional system was determined to not be viable for two reasons. First, the system was not designed to include significant future growth. Second, the infrastructure would need to reach the north edge of Loretto which would likely not be cost effective as it would require a lift station, approximately 1½ miles of forcemain, a directionally drilled/cased crossing of State Highway 55, as well as long-term operation and maintenance costs for the connecting infrastructure. Additionally, if the existing Loretto sewer system does not have enough available capacity to transfer this development-added flow to the south side of Loretto, additional force main length and a cased crossing of the railroad would also be required. 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. Given the limitations with connecting to the sewer system, it was determined that the most viable option for wastewater discharge generated by the Project would be to install an individual subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) for each parcel as currently proposed. Given the typically clayey soils in the area, these systems would utilize septic tank(s), with treated effluent being pumped to mound systems for further treatment/infiltration. The proposed gas station will have somewhat higher-strength wastewater discharge, which will likely require additional treatment unit(s) compared to the other lots. Hennepin County is the governing authority for permitting and tracking the installation, operation, maintenance, and enforcement of all SSTSs in the City of Corcoran. At some point in the future, when the City of Corcoran’s sewer and water systems are extended to the Project Area, the City will require all of the lots to connect to City water and sewer systems. Therefore, an 80-foot street right-of-way is required to accommodate a future watermain and gravity sewer to be installed along the proposed road. 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. The project would not result in wastewater discharges to surface waters. 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 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 16 stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction. Pre-Construction Stormwater Runoff Under existing conditions, the Project Area consists of agricultural land. Surface water runoff drains towards existing wetlands areas and roadway ditches. No existing stormwater features are present within the existing Project Area. Pollutants typically associated with agricultural areas include pesticides, sediment, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) from fertilizers, and metals. Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff The proposed project will increase impervious surfaces consisting of proposed buildings, parking areas, and roadways. The increased impervious surface areas will result in higher runoff rates, volumes, and pollutants compared to the existing conditions. Stormwater best management practices (BMPs) will be constructed to mitigate stormwater runoff rate, volumes, and pollutant loading. It is anticipated that the project will include wet sedimentation ponds with filtration benches to provide stormwater treatment. Preliminary locations for the proposed stormwater BMPs in the conceptual plan (Figure 1, Appendix A). The proposed drainage design will be confirmed as the project design is developed and will comply with all applicable local and state regulatory requirements. The MPCA will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater permit to be obtained for the project and all design since more than one acre of land will be disturbed by the proposed project. Project construction will adhere to NPDES permitting requirements. The project will also adhere to the City of Corcoran and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) stormwater requirements. A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required in accordance with MPCA and City of Corcoran stormwater requirements. A SWPPP be prepared during final project design and submitted for approval prior to construction of the project. Erosion control will utilize temporary sediment basins with ditches and check dams (sized per permit guidance), temporary ground cover where construction has paused, and perimeter control to avoid erosion and sedimentation throughout the site. Stockpiles will be stabilized when not in use and have the stockpile perimeter controlled. All permanent slopes 4:1 or steeper will have erosion control blankets installed. 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. Dewatering It is not anticipated that project construction would require dewatering and groundwater appropriation. If temporary dewatering is required during construction, a DNR Water Appropriation Permit would be required if dewatering activities exceed 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year. The extent and duration of any potential dewatering requirements will be Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 17 confirmed as the project design develops and all required permits will be obtained prior to project construction. Water Supply The closest existing City of Corcoran potable watermain is located approximately three miles east of the Project Area. The distance renders connection to this system impractical and would not be cost effective. Neighboring homes and businesses utilize private wells, and likewise, private wells are the most viable option for the proposed development. Review of well logs for these neighboring homes and businesses suggest that wells located in this development would be completed in the quaternary buried aquifer (usually artesian). These wells are typically four-inch diameter wells, completed in sand layers. The well depths of adjacent private wells indicate that wells located in the proposed development would be approximately 150 to 200 feet deep. Test pumping is commonly indicated at 20 to 30 gallons per minute (gpm). Wells completed in the underlying bedrock would also be an option, though at a higher cost. The developer will need to install fire protection systems in accordance with public safety requirements, as determined by the fire marshal. This may require installation of water storage tank that would serve as a reservoir to supply a building’s fire suppression system. Corcoran’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified a potential future well exploration area in the vicinity of this site. Although there are no plans to install a municipal well in the near term, the City may eventually install municipal well(s) in southwest Corcoran. As such, the City may consider siting a potential municipal well in the upland area slightly west of Building F of Lot 5, at the northern edge of the property. Given various well setback requirements and the need for the City to own the property within 50 feet of the well, the City would need an outlot designated for this purpose at the northern property edge (approximately 110 by 110-foot area), which would allow for the possibility of siting a future municipal well near the center of the outlot, along with a small wellhouse. An easement for a narrow access road would also be required between the street and the well site. At some point in the future, the City would install a test well to verify the suitability of this location for a municipal well (or conversely, to rule it out). If suitable, installation of the municipal well, wellhouse, and access road would occur at that time. As noted in the wastewater section, the developer must provide an 80-foot street right-of-way, which will provide an adequate width such that future City watermain can be installed along the south side of the road. iv. Surface Waters b) 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. Four wetlands are located within the Project Area covering a combined 3.15 acres. Complete avoidance of these wetland will not be feasible with the proposed project. Based on the preliminary project design, it is anticipated that the project will avoid impacts to Wetland 1 and Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 18 Wetland 2. The project is anticipated to encroach into portions of Wetland 3 and Wetland 4. Minimization of impacts to wetlands will be evaluated as the project design advances. Figure 5 in Appendix A illustrates the potential impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. Table 12 identifies the potential wetland impacts resulting from the proposed project. Table 12: Wetlands within the Project Area Wetland ID Circular Cowardin Size (Acres Onsite) Potential Impact (acres) 1 1/3 PEM1Af/ PEM1C 1.75 0 2 1 PEM1Af 0.60 0 3 1/3 PEM1Af/ PEM1C 0.33 0.33 4 1/3 PEM1Af/ PEM1C 0.47 0.47 Total Potential Impact 0.8 Impacts to wetlands are regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The City of Corcoran is the WCA local governmental unit (LGU). It is anticipated that impacts to regulated wetlands will be mitigated through wetland banking credits within the same Wetland Bank Service Area. The Project Area is located in Wetland Bank Service Area 7. Current regulations require wetland impacts within this area of the state are replace at a minimum ratio of 2:1. Mitigation for unavoidable permanent wetland impacts will be provided in accordance with all regulations and requirements in place at the time of final design and permitting. Wetlands that are avoided will be required to comply with the City of Corcoran’s wetland buffer requirements. c) Other surface waters - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. No surface waters are present within the Project Area. Surface waters present in the vicinity of the Project area are separated by roads and existing development. The Project would not impact surface waters in the vicinity of the Project area. 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 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 19 existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was completed in September 2018 by Braun Intertec Corporation to assess the presence of potential contamination. It should be noted that the Phase I ESA only covers the eastern portion of the Project Area, and thus only discusses contamination potential within and around this portion. The Phase I ESA included a records review, interviews, aerial photographs, site reconnaissance, and a summary of land use activities. Appendix D includes the executive summary from the Phase I ESA. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the eastern portion of the Project Area was historically utilized as cultivated agricultural land from at least 1947 to present day. The surrounding area has historically been agricultural land and rural residences except for one property to the southeast. This property was a farmstead from 1937 to 1947, and then, through various removals and rebuilds noted from aerial photographs taken in 1956, 1960, 1967-1974, and 1978-1984converted to a commercial use. Today, this property is owned by an electric and lighting service company. The Phase I ESA did not identify any recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, or historical recognized environmental conditions. No additional site investigations were recommended based on the findings of the Phase I ESA. A review of the MPCA’s What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) database 12 was conducted to identify documented potentially contaminated sites within or in the vicinity of the entire Project Area. No WIMN records are located within the Project Area and no records are located within approximately 1,000 feet of the Project Area. Two tank sites are located northwest of the Project Area along Pioneer Trail including one underground storage tank site approximately 1,500 feet away, and a second aboveground storage tank site approximately 1,800 feet away. Additionally, two sites are located approximately 2,000 feet west of the Project Area along Highway 55 including a very small quantity hazardous waste generator and an aboveground tank site. None of the aforementioned sites have a history of leaks or spills. The Phase I ESA and the review of the MPCA’s What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) did not identify any known potentially contaminated or hazardous materials within or in the vicinity of the Project Area that would be exposed or exacerbated by the construction of the proposed project. In the event that potentially contaminated soils or other potentially hazardous materials are encountered during construction, plans will be developed to properly handle and treat contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Any contaminated soils or other potentially hazardous materials encountered during construction will be handled and disposed of in accordance with MPCA and any other applicable requirements. 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 Waste Construction wastes will be typical of office/light industrial developments. Construction wastes will be primarily non-hazardous and would be managed as municipal solid waste (MSW) or construction/ demolition debris. Hazardous wastes in the form of used oils/lubricants, waste paints, or other materials 12 MPCA. What’s in My Neighborhood. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/data/whats-my-neighborhood Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 20 may be generated during construction. The contractor will be required to manage and dispose of all construction-generated waste in accordance with MPCA requirements and all other applicable regulatory requirements. Construction wastes will either be recycled or stored in approved containers and disposed of in the proper facilities. Any excess soil material that is not suitable for use onsite would become the property of the contractor and would be disposed of properly. All solid waste will be managed according to MPCA and other regulatory requirements. The Project Area does not contain existing buildings or structures are present. No demolition of existing buildings or structures would be required during construction. Operational Waste The project would generate solid waste during operation of the development, which is anticipated to include storage condominiums, office/showroom/retail, gas station/convenience store, and office warehouse/light manufacturing/distribution uses. Solid waste generated during operation of the development will be typical of waste generated by these office/light industrial uses and would be primarily managed as mixed municipal solid waste (MSW). CalRecycle provides a list of estimated solid waste generate rates for office, industrial, service, and other establishments for general planning purposes.13 Based on estimated solid waste generate rates of 1.42 lbs. per 100 square feet per day for office/warehouse uses and 0.9 lbs. per 100 square feet per day for auto service station uses, it was estimated that the project may produces approximately 1,040 tons of MSW per year. The collection of MSW would be managed waste hauler licensed by the City of Corcoran. The project will adhere to all MPCA requirements and other regulations pertaining to the use, handling and disposal of solid waste. Recycling areas will be provided in compliance with the Minnesota State Building code. 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 anticipated fuel storage tanks will be installed as part of the proposed gas station/convenience store facility. The number and size of the tanks will be identified as the project design develops. Based on fuel storage tank requirements for gas stations of a similar size in the area, it is anticipated that approximately seven to eight fuel storage tanks will be installed at the facility ranging from 8,000 to 20,000 gallons in storage capacity. The tank owner will be required to register with the MPCA and adhere to the design and operating regulations pursuant to Minnesota Rules Chapter 7150. The owner will be required to register the fuel storage tanks with the MPCA and comply with periodic inspection requirements and spill control and countermeasures. d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling. 13 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 21 Construction equipment may require the limited use of potentially hazardous materials, such as gasoline or diesel fuels, motor oils, hydraulic fluids, and other lubricants. Vehicles responsible for the transportation of hazardous materials will be equipped with spill kits for rapid response to any spills and refueling procedures will be implemented to eliminate leakage. Additionally, all fuels, oils, and lubricants will be stored in containment apparatuses while not in use or when being stored. Construction staff will be trained to spot and appropriately respond to potential spills. In the event that a leak or spill incident occurs, the contractor will be required to respond in accordance with MPCA containment and remedial action procedures. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plan will be prepared by a Minnesota Professional Engineer pursuant to federal regulations. Section 12.c describes the potential storage and use of hazardous materials during operation of the project. 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 in near the site. The vegetative land cover within the Project Area primarily consists of active agricultural land with limited trees lining the northern and eastern borders. Due to the dominance of agricultural land throughout the Project Area, there is limited habitat available for use by wildlife. Although limited, the tree lines along the field edge could provide avian migration stopover habitat as well as suitable nesting habitat. Therefore, there is a slight potential for migratory birds to be present within the Project Area during the spring, summer, and fall as well as potential for avian species that winter in Central Minnesota. The limited vegetative land cover present within the Project Area and along the borders may provide habitat for urban wildlife species, such as mice, rabbits, raccoons, and squirrels, among others. Four farmed wetlands (3.15 acres) were identified within the Project Area, but it is anticipated that the wetlands support a limited diversity of aquatic species due to their disturbed nature and their isolation from larger, less disturbed wetland communities. 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-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB _____________) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Under Stantec’s Limited License to Use Copyrighted Material (LA 1005) related to Rare Features Data, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) was searched in January 2022 to identify species within a one-mile radius of the Project Area. The NHIS search did not indicate any records within the proposed Project Area. Records of rare species were identified within in the one-mile review area including the trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator, State special concern species). A concurrence request was submitted to the DNR for review and is included in Appendix E. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) During the breeding season, trumpeter swans use small ponds and lakes or bays on larger water bodies that have approximately 100 meters of open water for take-off and have extensive beds of emergent Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 22 vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. They will commonly use muskrat houses, beaver lodges, exposed hummocks, small islands, and floating platforms to construct their nests. Adult trumpeter swans are primarily herbivorous but will occasionally feed on small crustaceans, fish, and fish eggs. Due to over hunting, Trumpeter swans in Minnesota were declared extirpated in the state in the mid-1900s. Reintroduction efforts began in the 1960s and a survey conducted in 2015 estimated the breeding population to be more than 17,000 individuals. Currently, the leading threat to their population is lead poisoning from lead shot and fishing sinkers but degradation of wetland habitat, power line collisions, and illegal hunting. Although repopulation efforts have continued to be successful, the trumpeter swam was included on Minnesota’s List of Endangered and Threatened Species List with the status of special concern due to continued threats to their population.14 The Project Area consists of active agricultural land and does not contain suitable breeding or feeding habitat for the trumpeter swan. Based on a review of the NHIS data, occurrences of trumpeter swans were associated with Morin Lake which is approximately 0.85 miles northeast of the Project Area. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the project is not anticipated to have an impact on the trumpeter swan. Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Per a review of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website, one federally listed species is within the Project Area, the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis, federal threatened species) County: Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) During winter, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) uses large caves and mines that have large passages and entrances, constant temperatures, and high humidity with no air currents. In summer, the NLEB roosts underneath bark, in cavities, and in crevices of live and dead trees that either retain their bark or provide suitable cavities or crevices.15 In Minnesota, the DNR maintains records of maternity roost trees or a hibernaculum within its NHIS database. Upon review of the DNR NHIS database under Stantec’s license agreement LA-1005, there are no records of NLEB maternity roost trees or a hibernaculum within the Project Area or its vicinity. Additionally, no tree clearing is anticipated to be required as part of this project and there are only a few trees along the perimeter of the Project Area; therefore, the Project will have no effect on NLEB. Migratory Birds According to the USFWS IPaC, there are no migratory birds of concern with the potential to occur within the Project Area. Construction activities and development within the Project Area have the potential to impact birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA makes it illegal for anyone to take (i.e., to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. 14 Stucker, S.P., DNR. Rare Species Guide. 2018. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=ABNJB02030 15 USFWS. Northern Long-Eared Bat Fact Sheet. April 2015. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/508_NLEB%20fact%20sheet.pdf Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 23 Under the MBTA, construction activities in grassland, roadsides, wetland, riparian (stream), shrubland, or woodland habitats that would otherwise result in the taking of migratory birds, eggs, young and/or active nests should be avoided. Although the provisions of the MBTA are applicable throughout the entire year, most migratory bird nesting activity in Minnesota occurs approximately from mid-March to August 15, per the DNR. Native Plant Communities and Biodiversity Sites Native plant communities, biodiversity sites, and Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RESA) were reviewed for the area within one mile of the proposed Project Area using the NHIS review trough Stantec’s license LA-1005. No native plant communities or biodiversity sites were noted within the Project Area however a few were noted within one mile of the Project Area. A native plant community (forested rich peatland system) is located approximately 0.55 miles east of the Project Area. Three sites of biodiversity significance ranked as moderate and one ranked as below were identified within one mile of the Project Area. The three moderate ranked biodiversity sites are all located over 0.55 miles east and northeast of the Project Area and the one below ranked site is approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project Area. Four RESA sites extend into the one-mile review area. Of these, two are ranked as high and two ranked as moderate ecological areas. The closest moderate ranked RESA site is located on the south side of Highway 55 opposite of the Project Area but all work being performed is proposed on the north side. The other moderate ranked RESA site is located approximately 0.65 miles northeast of the Project Area. The two high ranked RESA sites are approximately 0.5 miles south and 0.32 miles southeast of the Project Area. All of these RESA sites are located outside of the Project Area and will not be encroached upon by the proposed project. 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. The project is not anticipated to have impacts or adverse effects on federally or state-listed threatened and endangered species in the Project Area due to the lack of suitable habitat for the trumpeter swan, northern-long eared bat, migratory birds, native plant communities, and biodiversity sites. Although the Project Area is unlikely to provide suitable summer habitat for the NLEB, under the Final 4(d) Rule of the ESA, tree clearing, although not expected, is not prohibited as there are no records of NLEB maternity roost trees or a hibernaculum within the Project Area or a 0.25-mile buffer. Urban wildlife may be impacted with the removal of agricultural land, impacts to the land surrounding the agricultural land, and impacts to public road right-of-way within the Project Area; however, these habitat generalist species are typically adaptive to development activities and would likely relocate to similar undeveloped areas in the vicinity or continue to live in the remaining undeveloped areas within the Project Area. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. It is not anticipated that tree removal will be required during construction of the project. If required, removal of vegetation will avoid the NLEB bat pupping season from June 1 through August 15, when possible. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 24 The project will avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands to the extent possible. Based on the preliminary design, it is anticipated that the project may avoid impacts to two wetlands and may permanently impact two other wetlands. During construction, erosion control and runoff prevention measures will be implemented. Construction activities that involve soil disturbance can result in the introduction and spread of invasive species. Minnesota statutes (Chapter 18) and local ordinances regulate management of noxious weeds and invasive species. Best management practices during construction activities and operation within the Project Area should be implemented to minimize the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species at the site. 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. Appendix H includes a letter from the Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office with their determination that no known historical structures, archeological sites, or cultural properties are on or near the project site. 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. The Project Area currently consists primarily of agricultural land with wooded field edges. No designated scenic views or vistas are present in the vicinity of the Project. The landscape immediately surrounding the site consists of undeveloped agricultural land to the north, Highway 55 to the south, existing commercial and industrial facilities to the east, and residential uses to the northwest. The primarily visual impact will be the transition of views from agricultural land to buildings, parking lots, and stormwater basins. The development is not expected to include industries that would emit vapor plumes. The Project Area is zoned by the City of Corcoran as light industrial. The project will be required to adhere to the City of Corcoran’s ordinance requirements including building height and form, landscape screening, and lighting. The existing wooded tree line and vegetation along the northern boundary of the Project Area will continue to function as a visual buffer between Project and the residential lots to the northwest. 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. The project does not include heavy industrial uses that would have significant emissions. The project includes light industrial office warehouse, manufacturing, and distribution uses. These facilities may utilize natural gas and electric-powered equipment, which would emit low levels of greenhouse gas Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 25 emissions (GHG) as well as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and criteria pollutants, such as Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM). An inventory of potential electric and natural gas equipment to be installed at these facilities is not known at this time as prospective tenants have not been finalized. Generally, air emissions associated by these types of office and light industrial uses are relatively low and the facilities would not require an air permit. However, future tenants would be responsible for determining air permit applicability or exemption determinations based on the equipment to be installed with the facility prior to starting construction. The project includes a gas station/convenience store with fuel pumps and would require the installation of underground fuel storage tanks. Gasoline and diesel fuel storage tanks generate low quantities of working and evaporative losses of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and HAPS, typical of all retail fuel stations. Emissions primarily occur during vehicle fueling. Gasoline dispensing facilities are required to install vapor recovery systems to minimize emissions during tanker unloading. A detailed quantitative analysis of stationary source emissions is not possible at this time. However, general estimates of potential emissions arising from the gas station operations and natural gas heating for the planned square footage of the development can be estimated. Table 13 presents estimated maximum potential emissions from the Project. Table 13: Maximum Potential Emissions from Gas Station Fueling and Heating the Proposed Development (tons per year) Pollutant Gas Station (tons per year) Facility Heating (tons per year) Total (tons per year) PM 0.00 0.67 0.67 PM10 0.00 0.67 0.67 PM2.5 0.00 0.67 0.67 SO2 0.00 0.05 0.05 NOx 0.00 8.76 8.76 VOC 17.67 0.48 18.15 CO 0.00 7.36 7.36 Lead 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mercury 0.00 0.00 0.00 HAPS unknown 0.17 0.17 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. The Project Area is located in a CO maintenance area. The Project is expected to generate increased vehicular traffic, which will result in a relatively small increase in CO emissions and other vehicle related emissions. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) developed a CO hot spot screening method designed to identify intersections that may result in CO emissions that exceed air quality standards. MnDOT’s screening method assumes that intersections with a total daily traffic volume exceeding 82,300 vehicles per day may result in potential CO impacts that exceed air quality standards. A traffic impact study was completed for the Project, which is discussed in Section 18. Based on this study, intersections within the study area would not generate traffic exceeding 82,300 vehicles per day. Therefore, it is not anticipated that vehicle emissions generated by the project would have the potential to significantly impact CO air pollution. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 26 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. The Project may generate temporary dust and odors during construction. Potential odors would likely be associated with exhaust from diesel engines and fuel storage. Dust generated during construction will be minimized through standard dust control measures such as applying water to exposed soils and limiting the duration of exposed soils to the extent possible. Dust levels after construction is complete would be minimal as all surfaces will be paved or revegetated. 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. 1) Existing noise levels/sources in the area Existing noise sources include traffic along Highway 55 and connecting roadways and existing commercial and industrial uses adjacent to Highway 55. 2) Nearby sensitive receptors The noise receptors nearest to the Project Area are the residential homes to the northwest of the Project Area. The homes are located approximately 115 to 300 feet northwest of the Project Area. 3) Conformance to state noise standards The project is expected to minimize noise disturbances caused by construction and operation of the project development and will adhere to the noise regulations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 7030.0030 and Corcoran City Ordinances 1060.090 and 82.03 subpart 5. The regulations state that construction activities are prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. Furthermore, if the project includes a car wash operation it will comply with Corcoran City Ordinance 1040.100 subpart 4, which states car wash operations shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. 4) Quality of life Operation and construction of the Project will generate noise consistent with industrial uses and is not anticipated to affect the quality of life for nearby properties. The Project will be required to adhere to State and city noise regulations. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 27 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. 1) Existing and proposed parking spaces The existing project site consists of an undeveloped, agricultural area. No existing parking is available at the site. The Project would provide approximately 505 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed development. 2) Estimated total average daily traffic generated It is anticipated that the proposed development will generate approximately 8,986 trips per day. Table 14 summarizes daily and peak hour traffic. Table 14: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Weekday Daily Total Trips Light Industrial (Lot 4) 100,000 SF 74 65 487 Light Industrial (Lot 3) 66,000 SF 49 43 321 Retail (Lot 2) 11,300 SF 27 74 615 Storage Facility (Lot 5) 379,000 SF 64 68 648 Gas Station/ Convenience Store (Lot 1) 20 VFP 632 538 6,915 Total 846 788 8,986 Notes: SF denotes square feet, VFP indicates vehicle fueling positions. 3) Maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence The proposed development is expected to generate 846 trips during the a.m. peak hour (7:30-8:30 a.m.) and 788 during the p.m. peak hour. (5:00 – 6:00 p.m.) Table 9, above, summarizes peak hour traffic generation estimates resulting from the Project. 4) Source of trip generation rates Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 5) Availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes No transit routes or pedestrian facilities are present in the Project Area. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 28 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 traffic impact study was completed to evaluate opening year (year 2027) and future (year 2040) traffic volumes and determine the effects of the proposed project on traffic congestion in the area. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the full development would be completed by 2026. The traffic impact study was completed using Synchro software for the following intersections: • Trunk Highway (TH) 55 and Pioneer Trail • TH 55 and Rolling Hills Road • County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19 and Pioneer Trail • Pioneer Trail and the proposed development access road Traffic capacity results are present in terms of level of service (LOS) which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. LOS results are based on the average delay per vehicle. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F denotes an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Typically, intersection LOS A through D is considered to be acceptable traffic flow conditions. Table 15 and Table 16 summarize the results of the intersection operations analysis for the year 2027 and 2040 conditions, respectively. Appendix F includes the traffic impact study which provides additional details. Table 15: Year 2027 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis Intersection Traffic Control 2027 No Build LOS 2027 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour TH 55/ Pioneer Trail NB/SB stop A/E A/E F/F F/F TH 55/ Rolling Hills Road SB stop A/D A/D A/E A/E CSAH 19/ Pioneer Trail EB/WB stop A/B A/B A/C A/C Pioneer Trail/ proposed development access WB stop N/A N/A A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. Results of the traffic operations analysis indicate that under year 2027 No Build conditions, all intersections and movements operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, indicating acceptable traffic operations. During the 2027 Build conditions, the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection operates at an overall LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, indicating poor traffic conditions. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 29 Table 16: Year 2040 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis Intersection Traffic Control 2040 No Build LOS 2040 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour TH 55/ Pioneer Trail NB/SB stop A/F A/E F/F F/F TH 55/ Rolling Hills Road SB stop A/D A/D A/F A/F CSAH 19/ Pioneer Trail EB/WB stop A/B A/C A/C A/C Pioneer Trail/ proposed development access WB stop N/A N/A A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. During the 2040 No Build conditions, southbound movements at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour. The overall intersections operate at LOS A at all other intersections and all other movements operate at LOS E or better. Under 2040 Build conditions, the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection operate at an overall LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound movements at TH 55/Rolling Hills Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The TH 55/Rolling Hills Road intersections operates at an overall LOS A. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. TH 55/ Pioneer Trail Intersection Improvements The southbound movements at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection operates at a LOS F during the 2027 and 2040 Build conditions. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this intersection. A signal warrants analysis was completed for the 2027 Build condition based on criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The results of the signal warrant analysis indicate that warrants are met at the TH 55/ Pioneer Trail intersection for the 2027 Build condition. Any changes to signal control must be reviewed and approved by MnDOT. An intersection operations analysis was completed a potential traffic signal at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection. Table 17 summarizes the results of this analysis. Table 17: TH 55/Pioneer Trail Intersection Operations Analysis with Traffic Signal Control 2027 Build LOS 2040 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour B/C B/C B/D B/D Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. The TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection operations analysis indicates that under traffic signal control, all movements would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both year 2027 and 2020 Build conditions. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 30 Recommended Mitigation Table 14 summarizes recommended measures to mitigate potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed development. Table 18: Recommended Traffic Mitigation Measures Intersection Short-Term Measures Long-Term Measures TH 55/ Pioneer Trail • Widen southbound approach to accommodate dedicated left turn lane and a thru/right turn lane. • Install traffic signal. • No additional improvements. TH 55/ Rolling Hills Road • No additional improvements. • No additional improvements. CSAH 19/ Pioneer Trail • No additional improvements. • No additional improvements. Pioneer Trail/ proposed development access • Construct westbound approach with dedicated left and right turn lanes. • Construct a northbound right turn lane. • No additional improvements. 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 individual lots will be constructed over the next few years and that the full build out will occur by 2026. Currently, it is anticipated that Lot 5 will be constructed first, which proposes a storage unit facility. The timeline of project construction will depend on market conditions and may vary from the current foreseeable construction timeline. The project site is located in the City of Corcoran’s southwest Metropolitan Urban Services Area that has been planned for land uses and development as stated within the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Extension of services to the areas is planned to occur in 2030-2035 and, therefore, the City included estimated calculations within each section of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that accounted for the increased demand for water, sanitary sewer and transportation improvements. The development is proposed in advance of these services being available to the site, however, septic and well will be provided to the development until a time they are able to connect with municipal services. This EAW considered potential cumulative impacts for future light industrial and commercial development as described in applicable items. Beyond the analysis conducted and provided, there are no known of project cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed project that were not reviewed and considered as part of this process. 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. As stated in previous items, the proposed project site was planned for development to connect to municipal water and wastewater services. Installation of the main trunk sanitary sewer line is not planned Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 31 with this development and is anticipated to be extended to this area in 2030-2035. The project will not require municipal services but is proposed at a density appropriate enough to be connected to municipal services when available. The construction of the public road is consistent with the Southwest District Plan. A light industrial self-storage facility is planned on a parcel immediately to the west of the site and is not expected to interact with the environmental effects of the proposed project. Several residential and senior living development are currently under review by the City. These proposed developments are concentrated towards the eastern portion of the City of Corcoran along County Road 116. One other project is proposed in close proximity to the Project, the proposed Garages Too development located at 2240 Highway 55. An application for this project was submitted to the City of Corcoran in November 2021 requesting approval of a rezoning, site plan, conditional use permit, variance, and preliminary plat to allow for the development of four new buildings for a proposed mini storage/self storage facility adjacent to Highway 55. This proposed project is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the proposed Pioneer Trail Industrial Park. Proposed light industrial development within and immediately adjacent to the Project Area along Highway 55 is consistent with the City of Corcoran’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 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. Potential impacts that were considered as part of the cumulative potential effects evaluation include waters resources, wetlands, public infrastructure, and loss of agricultural land, and transportation. Water Resources The project will convert undeveloped agricultural land into a proposed industrial park, which will increase impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Section 11 of this EAW, the proposed additional impervious surface area is expected to result in higher runoff rates, volumes, and pollutants compared to the existing conditions. Other proposed developments in the area resulting in the conversion of agricultural and rural residential land to industrial and residential developments will similarly increase the area of impervious surfaces. These future developments will be required to implement stormwater BMPs to mitigate stormwater runoff impacts in accordance with all City, ECWMC, and MPCA approval and permitting requirements. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts to water quality and quantity are not anticipated. Public Infrastructure As discussed in Section 11, currently the most viable option for water supply and wastewater, is to utilize private wells and a subsurface sewage treatment system. As future development occurs, sewer and water systems may be extended to the Project Area and the proposed development would be required to connect the City water and sewer systems. The Project will be required to accommodate an 80-foot right-of-way to accommodate future expansion to the watermain. The City of Corcoran regulates future development thought its land use policies and zoning requirements. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified the potential for future municipal well exploration areas and future studies to evaluate sewer and water extension to Southwest Corcoran. The Project would not preclude future extension of the sewer and water systems and will connect to these systems when available. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts related to public infrastructure are not anticipated. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW 32 Wetlands It is anticipated that the Project will impact approximately 0.8 acres of wetlands. Potential wetland impacts will be confirmed during final design and permitting of the Project. Planned development in the vicinity of the Project may also impact wetlands in the surrounding area. Wetlands are protected by state and federal laws, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and WCA, which require avoidance of wetland impacts when possible, and when avoidance is not possible, impacts must be minimized and mitigated. Adverse cumulative impacts to wetlands are not anticipated given the federal and state regulations that mandate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements for wetland impacts. Agricultural Land The Project will convert existing agricultural land to an industrial development. Planned development along the Highway 55 and the surrounding areas may also convert agricultural land to other land uses. The City of Corcoran guides development through the City’s land use plan and zoning codes. The Project is consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the Project Area and adjacent properties along Highway 55 for future light industrial development. The City of Corcoran through their land use policies and zoning requirements, regulates future development and can protect agricultural land from future development as appropriate. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts to agricultural land are not anticipated. Transportation A Traffic Impact Study for the Project was completed that incorporated future traffic growth and recommended mitigation measures to address traffic impacts. Appendix F includes the Traffic Impact Study. Future developments in the surrounding area that are anticipated to increase traffic congestion, would be required to complete a traffic impact study and identify mitigation measures to address these impacts. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts related to traffic congestion are not anticipated. 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 the proposed project. Potential environmental effects have been addressed in Items 1 through 19. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Appendix A Figures f:\community\radach, joe\temp projects\northmarq\corcoran - pioneer trail\concepts\_corcoran - concept n_211004.dwgSave Date:10/05/211of1 CONCEPT PLAN N LANDSPEC USA 5229 Minnetoga Terrace Minnetonka, MN 55343REVISIONSDRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:ISSUE DATE:JTRJTR10/05/21PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK Corcoran, MinnesotaNOTESFigure 1. Concept Plan Carver County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ ¾¾Ç5555 Wagon Wheel L a Pio n e e r T r L35AL35A L35A L35A L36A L36A L36A L36A L44A L44A L44A L44A L16A L9A L22C2 L37B L36A L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L37BL37B L37B L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22D2 L22D2 L22D2 L40B L40B L40B L22EL22E L22E L41C2 L41C2 L41C2 L41C2 L23AL23A L23A L23A L24A L41D2 L41D2 L41D2 L41E L24A 32 5 T119 R23W T118 R23W Corcoran Medina Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704712\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-01-24 By: kjmuellerLegend Project Area NRCS Soils Classification L16A,Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils, ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes L22C2,Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded L22D2,Lester loam, 10 to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded L22E,Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent slopes L23A,Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes L24A,Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes L35A,Lerdal loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes L36A,Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes L37B,Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes L40B,Angus-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes L41C2,Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded L41D2,Lester-Kilkenny complex, 10 to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded L41E,Lester-Kilkenny complex, 16 to 22 percent slopes L44A,Nessel loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes L9A,Minnetonka silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, NRCS, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:6,000 0 250 500 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-01-24 TR by XXX on 2020-XX-XX IR by XXX on 2020-XX-XX T119N, R23W, S32 C. of Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704712City of Corcoran, MN EAW Soil Classifications 2 Carver County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ $+11 $+19 ¾¾Ç5555 Horseshoe Tr Railway St Homestead Tr Malla rdLaRolling Hills RdHillview LaLoretto St A pache DrWil lo wDr Shi re D r Pioneer TrHorsesho e B e nd Dr73rdAveNTomahawk TrChippewa Rd 30 29 28 31 32 33 6 5 4 7 8 9 T119 R23W T118 R23W Corcoran Medina Loretto Morin (27042300) Unnamed (27042200) Unnamed (27042100) Unnamed (27042000) Unnamed (27049400) Unnamed (27037100) Unnamed (27049600)Unnamed (27049700) Unnamed (27049800) Unnamed (27035400) Thomas (27050100) Unnamed (27049900) Jubert (27016500) Peter (Main Basin) (27014701) Peter (North Bay) (27014702) Unnamed (27049500) Scott (27110200) Unnamed Creek (M-062-004-002-004)Rush Creek, SouthFork (M-062-004-002)U nn a m e d S tream(M-064-004.6-002)UnnamedCreek (M-062-004-002-004-001)PETER (NORTH BAY) (Nutrients) PETER (NORTH BAY) (Nutrients) Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704712\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-03-03 By: kjmuellerLegend 1 Mile Radius Project Area Field Delineated Wetland 2022 MPCA Impaired Lakes (Draft) Minnesota Public Waters Delineations Public Water Watercourse Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Waters Basins NHD - Flowline NHD - Waterbody NWI Circular 39 Class 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basin or Flat 2 - Wet Meadow 3 - Shallow Marsh 4 - Deep Marsh 5 - Shallow Open Water 6 - Shrub Swamp 7 - Wooded Swamp 8 - Bog Municipal and Industrial Activities Riverine Systems Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, MNDNR, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:24,000 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-03-03 TR by XXX on 2020-XX-XX IR by XXX on 2020-XX-XX T119N, R23W, S32 C. of Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704712City of Corcoran, MN EAW Water Resources Map 3 Carver County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A 126395 105388 149424 126361 145416 426346 126834 105139 248501 425077 765027 400838 105194 155069 127232 105362 107089 178191 725399 164529 453839 764194 660562 616618 675321 612343 668019 655029 690117 649240 544660 655079662275 169219 739129506522 450347 735717 441055 737569624943 478391 111017 160690 766267 662292 504387 611859 649309 583329 756058 719406169245 498345 643977 435852 736633 434449 530298 174575158438 105061 274488 ¾¾Ç5555 Rolling Hills RdHorseshoe Tr Pio n e e r T r Ho r sesho e B e n d Dr Chippewa Rd 31 32 33 6 5 4 T119 R23W T118 R23W Corcoran Medina Loretto Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704712\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-01-24 By: kjmuellerLegend County Well Index !A Unknown !A Domestic !A Irrigation !A Public Supply 500 ft Radius 1/2 mi Radius Project Area Wellhead Protection Areas Drinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability Low Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, NRCS, MNDOT, MNDOH 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:14,400 0 600 1,200 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-01-24 TR by XXX on 2020-XX-XX IR by XXX on 2020-XX-XX T119N, R23W, S32 C. of Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704712City of Corcoran, MN EAW County Well Index 4 Carver County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ Potential Impact 0.47 ac. Potential Impact 0.33 ac. ¾¾Ç5555 Wago n W h e e l L a Pione e r T r Wetland 1 Wetland 4 Wetland 3 Wetland 2 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704712\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-03-03 By: kjmuellerLegend Project Area Potential Wetland Impact Field Delineated Wetland Industrial Park Concept Plan Site Septic Stormwater Pond Building Footprint Road/Parking Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, Carlson McCain 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:4,800 0 200 400 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-03-03 TR by XXX on 2020-XX-XX IR by XXX on 2020-XX-XX T119N, R23W, S32 C. of Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704712City of Corcoran, MN EAW Potential Wetland Impacts 5 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityFigure 6: Hennepin County Location Map Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 03.14.22 Pioneer Trail EAW • Corcoran, MN 0 2.5 5 7.5 Miles Legend County Boundary Hennepin CountyHennepin County Project Location Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Figure 7: Cover Type Map Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 03.14.22 Pioneer Trail EAW • Corcoran, MN 0 250 500 750 Feet Legend Site Boundary Land Cover Type Impervious Surface Wooded/Forest Wetlands Cropland Brush/Grassland 10261 0 2 4 102210281 0 3 0 10 3 2 103410361038104010421 0 4 4 104610 0 6 972 97410129821004 9 9 6 10 5 6 10149989949921008101010589701032 1006 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Figure 8: USGS Topographic Map Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 03.14.22 Pioneer Trail EAW • Corcoran, MN Legend Site Boundary 2-foot Contours 0 250 500 750 Feet ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Pio n e e r T r l Rolling Hills RdJubertLnScott Lake Jubert Lake The method and timing of regional wastewater service to be determined through future study. 5/27/2029 Figure 9: 2040 Future Land Use Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 03.15.22 Pioneer Trail EAW • Corcoran, MN Legend ! ! ! ! ! !Future Study 2040 MUSA Future MUSA Expansion Agricultural Reserve (Date of Expiration) Municipal Boundary Streams Lake/Open Water Parcel Boundaries Wetlands Future Land Use Rural/Ag Residential Existing Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Residential High Density Residential Rural Service/Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Park Light Industrial Public/Semi-Public Parks/Open Space Agricultural Preserve (Date of Expiration) Open Water 0 500 1,000 Feet Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Appendix B Wetland Delineation and WCA Notice of Decision 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for Landspec Fund 2 LLC by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2019-179) January 6, 2020 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 2. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 2 3. METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations ....................................................... 3 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information ........................................... 4 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations......................................................................... 4 4.3 Other Areas ........................................................................................................................ 6 4.4 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations ....................................................... 7 4.5 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination .................................... 8 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION .............................................................................. 9 FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Public Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset 7. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas APPENDICES A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms C. Precipitation Information D. Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Assessment 1 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY • The 56.4-acre 6210 Pioneer Trail Site was inspected on November 14, 2019 for the presence and extent of wetland. • The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed four wetlands mapped within the site boundaries. • The soil survey showed Hamel (Partially Hydric) as the Hydric Soil Type mapped on the site. • The DNR Public Waters Inventory did not show any DNR Public Waters, DNR Public Waterways or DNR Public Wetlands within 1000 feet of the site. • The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Lake/Pond approximately 200 feet west of the site. • Four wetlands delineated within the site boundaries are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Wetlands delineated on the 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland ID Wetland Type Dominant Vegetation Size (Acres Onsite) Circular 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed 1 1/3 PEM1Af/PEM1C Seasonally Flooded Basin, Shallow Marsh Reed canary grass, cattail, smartweed, scattered sedges 1.75 2 1 PEM1Af Seasonally Flooded Basin Sparse vegetation, field nutsedge 0.60 3 1/3 PEM1Af/PEM1C Seasonally Flooded Basin, Shallow Marsh Cattail, reed canary grass, smartweed 0.33 4 1/3 PEM1Af/PEM1C Seasonally Flooded Basin, Shallow Marsh Cattail, reed canary grass, sedges 0.47 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report 2 2. OVERVIEW The 56.4-acre 6210 Pioneer Trail Site was inspected on November 14, 2019 for the presence and extent of wetland. The property was located in Section 32, Township 119 North, Range 23 West, Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The site was situated north of Minnesota Highway 55, east of Pioneer Trail (Figure 1). The site boundaries corresponded to Hennepin County PID#’s: 3211923430006, 3211923430005, 3211923340007 and 3211923340013. The 6210 Pioneer Trail Site consisted of a farm field that had been planted with corn on the western portion and soybeans on the eastern portion, with crops remaining to be harvested on the eastern portion of the site. The topography of the site sloped from an elevation of 1060 ft MSL on the eastern portion of the site down to a low of 1008 ft MSL on the northern portion. Surrounding land use consisted of single-family residential, farm land and rural residential. Four wetlands were delineated within the site boundaries. The delineated wetland boundaries and existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation concurrence under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 3. METHODS 3.1 Wetland Delineation Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were marked with pin flags that were located by land surveyors from Otto Associates. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland- upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report 3 Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 7, 2010). Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components). Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2017 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2017. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). 3.2 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations Areas in agricultural cropland that exhibited potential wetland signatures on aerial photography and with low or depressional topography were reviewed generally following methods described in Using Aerial Imagery to Assess Wetland Hydrology (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) 2010) and Guidance for Submittal of Delineation Reports to the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers and Wetland Conservation Act Local Governmental Units in Minnesota, Version 2.0 (USACE 2015). These methods use aerial photography and antecedent precipitation conditions to identify areas that have wetland hydrology signatures during periods of typical precipitation. Available years of Farm Service Agency (FSA) aerial photography were reviewed for the site to determine long-term hydrology. In cases where additional aerial photography was relevant, available, and necessary to make hydrology determinations, we reviewed aerial photography from other sources such as the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office (MnGEO) and Google Earth. Signatures at locations of potential wetlands on aerial photographs were interpreted and classified using seven codes (Table 2). Wetland hydrology was assumed to be present within areas exhibiting wetland signatures in more than 50% of years with normal climatic conditions based on antecedent precipitation. Table 2. Aerial photograph interpretation codes Code Classification CS Crop stress DO Drowned out NC Not cropped SW Standing water WS Wetland signature AP Altered pattern NV Normal vegetation 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report 4 This analysis used only aerial photographs taken following periods of precipitation within the normal range as determined using the Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval tool (Minnesota Climatology Office 2015). This tool classifies antecedent precipitation as Normal (N), Wet (W) or Dry (D) by comparing precipitation during the three months preceding the estimated date of aerial photography to the 30-year average from 1981-2010. July 1 was used as the estimated date of FSA aerial photography. 4. RESULTS 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) showed four wetlands mapped within the site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Hamel (Partially Hydric) as the Hydric Soil type mapped on the site. Soil types mapped on the property are listed below in Table 3 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) did not show any DNR Public Waters, DNR Public Waterways or DNR Public Wetlands within 1000 feet of the site (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond approximately 200 feet west of the site (Figure 6). 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on November 14, 2019. Four wetlands were identified and delineated on the property based on field observations and aerial photography (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix B. The following descriptions of the wetlands and adjacent uplands reflects conditions observed at the time of the Table 3. Soil types mapped on the 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Symbol Soil Name Acres % of Area % Hydric Hydric Category L40B Angus-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes 21.60 0.389 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric L41C2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 14.96 0.270 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 8.04 0.145 45 Partially Hydric L41D2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded 6.68 0.120 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric L35A Lerdal loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 4.20 0.076 15 Predominantly Non-Hydric L41E Lester-Kilkenny complex, 18 to 25 percent slopes 0.03 0.001 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report 5 field visit. Herbaceous vegetation was senesced at the time of the field visit. Precipitation conditions were wetter than typical based on the Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database method, but were within the normal range based on the 30-day rolling total precipitation (Appendix C). The site experienced wetter than normal conditions for much of the 2019 growing season. Notably, between the preceding months of July, August, September and October the site received 25.16 inches of rainfall. Wetland 1 was a Type 1/3 (PEM1Af/PEM1C) shallow marsh and partially farmed seasonally flooded basin wetland. The wetland was dominated by cattail in the center, with a fringe dominated by reed canary grass, smartweed and scattered sedges. No saturation or inundation was observed within the wetland at the time of the November 14, 2019 field visit, however saturation and shallow inundation of 1-3” was observed during the November 25, 2019 TEP Meeting (0.67” precipitation between November 14 and November 25). The wetland covered 1.75 acres within the site boundaries. Adjacent upland consisted of a farm field dominated by soybeans, which had been harvested by the time of the field visit. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland. The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation from a wetland plant community to farmed upland dominated by soybeans, as well as a distinct change in topography. Wetland 1 was shown as a PEM1A wetland on the NWI map, and was located within an area mapped as Hamel (Partially Hydric) on the soil survey. Wetland 1 extended offsite, sloping downhill to the north. Wetland 2 was a Type 1 (PEM1Af) farmed seasonally flooded basin wetland that was dominated by sparse cover of field nutsedge. No saturation or inundation was observed within the wetland at the time of the November 14, 2019 field visit, however saturation and shallow inundation of 1- 3” was observed during the November 25, 2019 TEP Meeting (0.67” precipitation between November 14 and November 25). The wetland covered 0.60 acres within the site boundaries. Adjacent upland consisted of a farm field dominated by soybeans, which had been harvested by the time of the field visit. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland. The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation from a wetland plant community to farmed upland dominated by soybeans, as well as a distinct change in topography. Wetland 2 was shown as a PEM1Af/PEM1C wetland on the NWI map, and was located within an area mapped as Hamel (Partially Hydric) on the soil survey. Wetland 2 extended offsite to the north. Wetland 3 was a Type 1/3 (PEM1Af/PEM1C) shallow marsh and partially farmed seasonally flooded basin wetland dominated by cattail, reed canary grass and smartweed. No saturation or inundation was observed within the wetland at the time of the November 14, 2019 field visit, however saturation and shallow inundation of 1-3” was observed during the November 25, 2019 TEP Meeting (0.67” precipitation between November 14 and November 25). The wetland covered 0.33 acres within the site boundaries. 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report 6 Adjacent upland consisted of a farm field dominated by soybeans, which had been harvested by the time of the field visit. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland. The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation from a wetland plant community to farmed upland dominated by soybeans, as well as a distinct change in topography. Wetland 3 was shown as a PEM1A wetland on the NWI map, and was located within an area mapped as Lester-Kilkenny (Predominantly Non-Hydric) on the soil survey. Wetland 3 drained overland to the west towards Wetland 1. Wetland 4 was a Type 1/3 (PEM1Af/PEM1C) shallow marsh and partially farmed seasonally flooded basin wetland dominated by cattail, sedges and reed canary grass with a fringe of sparsely vegetated farmed wetland that contained field nutsedge. No saturation or inundation was observed within the wetland at the time of the November 14, 2019 field visit, however saturation and shallow inundation of 1-3” was observed during the November 25, 2019 TEP Meeting (0.67” precipitation between November 14 and November 25). The wetland covered 0.47 acres within the site boundaries. Adjacent upland consisted of a farm field dominated by soybeans, which had been harvested by the time of the field visit. Primary and secondary hydrology indicators were not observed on the upland. The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation from a wetland plant community to farmed upland dominated by soybeans, as well as a distinct change in topography. Wetland 4 was not shown as a wetland on the NWI map, but was located within an area mapped as Hamel (Partially Hydric) on the soil survey. Wetland 4 drained to the south through a culvert beneath Minnesota State Highway 55. 4.3 Other Areas Other areas were investigated because they were: (1) observed to support a hydrophytic plant community, (2) had visible wetland hydrology indicators, (3) were shown as wetland on the NWI map, or (4) were depressional and mapped as hydric soil. Field investigation led to the conclusion that these areas were not wetland. A potential connection between Wetland 1 and Wetland 3 (Area D, See Figure 2) was evaluated based upon the presence of partially hydric soils (Hamel). This area was sloped, and showed washed out crops during some wetter than typical photo years, but did not show sufficient wetland hydrology signatures to be determined wetland. Wetland 1 and Wetland 3 were evaluated during the offsite hydrology review, and were determined not to extend far enough to form a connection. This area was also reviewed in the field and determined to be upland. Area A, B and C are discussed in Section 4.4 on the following page. 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report 7 No other areas with hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology were observed on the site. No other areas were shown as hydric soil on the soil survey or as wetland on the NWI map. 4.4 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations Aerial photography was reviewed for 12 years between 1997 and 2017 that were assessed for wet/normal/dry climatic conditions using the Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval tool and an estimated photo date of July 1 for the FSA aerials. Five years (1997, 2006, 2010, 2012 and 2015) were determined have precipitation in the normal range during the three months preceding the estimated photo dates. Areas showing at least one wetland signature during a year with wetter than normal precipitation conditions were included in the aerial review. The results are summarized in Table 5 below and review areas are shown on Figure 7. Aerial photographs showing review areas and interpretations are included in Appendix D. Seven Areas (Wetlands 1 through 4 and Areas A, B and C) exhibited potential wetland signatures, were located in cropland, and were reviewed according to the BWSR (2010) protocol. Areas exhibiting wetland signatures in more than 50% of the years with precipitation in the normal range are generally assumed to meet wetland hydrology criteria. Areas exhibiting wetland signatures in 30% to 50% of the years with precipitation in the normal range were reviewed in the field (Table 5, Figures 2 and 7). Field delineated wetlands were examined during the offsite hydrology assessment to confirm or adjust wetland boundaries to match the extent of consistent signatures on aerial imagery. Table 5. Offsite hydrology determinations summary Area No. of Photo Years w/ Normal Precipitation No. of Normal Precipitation Years w/ Wetland Signatures % of Normal Precipitation Years w/ Wetland Signatures Wetland Determination WL 1 5 5 100 Yes WL 2 5 4 80 Yes WL 3 5 5 100 Yes WL 4 5 5 100 Yes Area A 5 1 20 No Area B 5 2 40 No Area C 5 2 40 No, Washout Wetland 1, 2, 3 and 4 showed sufficient wetland signatures on aerial imagery taken under normal precipitation conditions to meet offsite hydrology criteria. Boundaries for these wetlands were determined during fieldwork, and were confirmed based on the offsite hydrology review. Wetland descriptions have been provided in Section 4.2 of the report. Area A (Sample Point A) showed wetland signatures in 20% of years with normal precipitation conditions. This area was not shown as a wetland on the NWI map, and was located within an area shown as Lester-Kilkenny complex (Predominantly Non-Hydric) on the soil survey. This area was below the threshold for field verification, however a sample point was taken that 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report 8 revealed a sloped area that did not meet wetland hydrology criteria. Therefore, this area was determined to be upland. Area B (Sample Point B) showed wetland signatures in 40% of years with normal precipitation conditions. This area was not shown as a wetland on the NWI map, and was located within an area shown as Hamel Loam (Partially Hydric) on the soil survey. This area was reviewed in the field, and was dominated by healthy soybeans, that had partially been washed out along the hillslope. The adjacent hillslope contained erosional rills that drained through the subject area toward the road ditch offsite to the south. Notably, the road ditch to the south (offsite) contained shallow marsh wetland (See Figure 2), however the area between the road ditch wetland and SP- B contained a strip of upland plants including smooth brome and Canada thistle. The area surrounding SP-B contained deposited sediment from the adjacent hillslope, which is believed to be the reason that this area does not contain healthy crops during some photo years. This area was therefore determined to be upland. Areas C (Sample Point C) showed wetland signatures in 40% of years with normal precipitation conditions. This area was not shown as a wetland on the NWI map, and was located within an area shown as Angus-Kilkenny (Predominantly Non-Hydric) on the soil survey. The area surrounding SP-C was reviewed in the field, and consisted of healthy crops. Given that the precipitation conditions were atypically wet during the 2019 growing season, this area was determined not to meet wetland hydrology criteria. 4.5 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation concurrence under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report 9 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation Completed by: Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321 Kyle Uhler, GIS Specialist Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1353 Report Prepared by: Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321 Report reviewed by: __________________________________ Date: January 6, 2020 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset 7. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,500 Feet Site Boundary Source: ESRI Streets Basemap !( !( !( !(10301028 102610241022 10201018 1016 10141012101010321034 1036 1048 10381046104010501044 1042 1052 1054 10561008100610581004100210009981 0 6 0 10561020 10 5 8 10261058 10381016 1 0 5 6 10 5 6 1060104810581060 10581 0 5 6 10 5 0 1058 1028101010601 0 4 0 1 0 4 4 1004 1010 1032 105810 3 6 103 4 10 5 2 1026 1050 10161058 1012 1022 1 0 2 21052 1 0 4 2 10581010 1 0 5 4 1034104 6 1008 1016Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 MNGEO Photo) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Winter Delineation Offsite Wetland Transect Wetland Boundary Erosional Rill !(Sample Point Culvert Hennepin County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 1.75 Acres Wetland 3 0.33 Acres Wetland 4 0.47 Acres Wetland 2 0.60 Acres SP2-1Wet SP-C SP-A SP-B T4-1 T1-1 T3-1 Rill 1 Rill 5 Rill 4 Rill 3 Rill 2 Area D PEM1A PEM1C PEM1C PFO1/EM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1C PEM1Af PEM1C PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PABF PUBGxPEM1APUBGx PFO1/EM1C Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 400 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USFWS L40B L40B L41C2 L36A L36A L35A L40B L36A L37B L41D2 L36A L41C2 L35AL37B L41D2 L35A L41D2 L35A L41E L22D2 L23A L22C2L22C2 L22C2 L44A L22C2 L41C2 L44A L23A L23A L22D2 L36A L41D2 L24A L22C2 L36A L22E L37BL24A L22E L16A L44A Figure 4 - Soil Survey 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 400 Feet Site Boundary Hydric/Predominantly Hydric Partially Hydric Predominantly Non-Hydric/Non-HydricSource: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS See narrative for soil series information. Jubert (27-165 P) Unnamed (27-494 W) Unnamed (27-495 W) Peter (North Bay) (27-147-02 P) Peter (Main Basin) (27-147-01 P)Unnamed (27-498 W) Unnamed (27-494 W) Unnamed (27-422 W)Unnamed Stream (M-064-004.6-002)Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Site Boundary Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Watercourse Public WatersSource: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Site Boundary Hydro Junction Artificial Path Connector Stream/River Lake/Pond Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USGS Figure 7 - Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas (2017 FSA Photo: Wet Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX B Wetland Delineation Data Forms Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample area consisted of a farm field that was planted with corn for the 2019 growing season. The crops had been harvested, and the soils at this location were tilled. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP1-1UpMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 0 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 0 0 0 0 0.00% N/A 0 (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 0 0 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample point was taken with a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. N Dominant Species Indicator Staus X N/A Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Hamel (Partially Hydric)NWI Classification: 0 - 2 Lat:Long:-Datum:- Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 25-40 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):34 32 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 13-25 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam 0-13 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP1-1Up Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point was located in an area that had been planted with corn for the 2019 growing season. The crops at this location had been drowned out, but sparse cover of field nutsedge was present. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP1-1WetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 5 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 5 10 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Cyperus esculentus 5 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 2.00 5 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 1If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample Point was located within a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. Y Dominant Species Indicator Staus X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Hamel (Partially Hydric)NWI Classification: 0 - 2 Lat:Long:-Datum:- Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X X 22-31 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam This area showed wetland signatures in 100% of normal photo years in the offsite hydrology review. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):30 28 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 14-22 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP1-1Wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N Hamel (Partially Hydric)NWI Classification: 0 - 2 Lat:Long:-Datum:- X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 2If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample Point was located within a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. Y Dominant Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 5 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Cyperus esculentus 5 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Y 0 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 5 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 5 10 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% Sample point was located in an area that had been planted with corn for the 2019 growing season. The crops at this location had been drowned out, but sparse cover of field nutsedge was present. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP2-1 WetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X X Sampling Point:SP2-1 Wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0-29 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam 29-34 2.5Y 4/2 98 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):35 33 This area showed wetland signatures in 80% of normal photo years in the offsite hydrology review. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N Lester-Kilkenny Complex (Predominantly Non-Hydric)NWI Classification: 4 - 6 Lat:Long:-Datum:- X N/A Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample point was taken with a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. N Dominant Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 (Plot size:5 ft Radius N/A 0 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 0 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 0 0 0 0 0.00% Sample area consisted of a farm field that was planted with corn for the 2019 growing season. The crops had been harvested, and the soils at this location were tilled. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP3-1UpMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP3-1Up Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0-13 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam 13-25 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):34 32 *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 25-40 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N Lester-Kilkenny Complex (Predominantly Non-Hydric)NWI Classification: 0 - 2 Lat:Long:-Datum:- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 3If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample Point was located within a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. Y Dominant Species Indicator Staus 40 40 0 0 0 1.50 80 120 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Typha angustifolia 40 Y OBL (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phalaris arundinacea 40 Y FACW Y 0 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 80 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 40 80 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 2 2 0 0 100.00% Sample point was located within an avoided wetland in a farm field. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP3-1WetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X X Sampling Point:SP3-1Wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam 14-22 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):30 28 This area showed wetland signatures in 100% of normal photo years in the offsite hydrology review. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 22-31 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample area consisted of a farm field that was planted with corn for the 2019 growing season. The crops had been harvested, and the soils at this location were tilled. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP4-1UpMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 0 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 0 0 0 0 0.00% N/A 0 (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 0 0 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample point was taken with a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. N Dominant Species Indicator Staus X N/A Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Lerdal loam (Predominantly Hydric)NWI Classification: 4 - 6 Lat:Long:-Datum:- Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 25-40 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):34 32 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 13-25 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam 0-13 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP4-1Up Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point was located in an area that had been planted with corn for the 2019 growing season. The crops at this location had been drowned out, but sparse cover of field nutsedge was present. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP4-1WetMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 5 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 5 10 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Cyperus esculentus 5 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 2.00 5 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 4If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample Point was located within a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. Y Dominant Species Indicator Staus X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Lerdal loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric)NWI Classification: 0 - 2 Lat:Long:-Datum:- Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X X 22-31 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam This area showed wetland signatures in 100% of normal photo years in the offsite hydrology review. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):36 34 Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 14-22 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP4-1Wet Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample area consisted of a farm field dominated by corn stubble from the 2019 growing season. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP-AMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 25 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 5 10 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 20 80 50.00% N 0 Trifolium pratense 20 Y FACU (Plot size:5 ft Radius Cyperus esculentus 5 Y FACW 0 3.60 25 90 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample point was taken with a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. N Dominant Species Indicator Staus X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Lester-Kilkeny Complex (Predominantly Non-Hydric)NWI Classification: 3 - 5 Lat:Long:-Datum:- Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 24-35 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam This area showed wetland signatures in 20% of normal photo years in the offsite hydrology review. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) XYes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No Depth (inches):X X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 8-24 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/4 10 C M Clay Loam 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP-A Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N Hamel (Partially Hydric)NWI Classification: 0 - 2 Lat:Long:-Datum:- X X N/A Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample point was taken with a farmed area. Vegetation and soils were disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. N Dominant Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 (Plot size:5 ft Radius N/A 0 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 0 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 0 0 0 0 0.00% Sample area consisted of a farm field dominated by soybeans. The crops were healthy, although some had been washed out along the hillslope. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP-BMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP-B Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0-4 10YR 3/2 100 Loam Agricultural sediment 4-24 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Sandy Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Assumed A12. Soils disturbed due to erosion from farming. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No Depth (inches):X X This area showed wetland signatures in 40% of normal photo years in the offsite hydrology review. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) XYes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):A.Cameron, K.Uhler Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Flat Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N Angus-Kilkenny Complex (Predominantly Non-Hydric)NWI Classification: 0 - 2 Lat:Long:-Datum:- X N/A Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation from Gridded Database Method wetter than typical. 30-day precipitation rolling average within normal range. Sample point was taken with a farmed area, therefore vegetation was disturbed and normal circumstances were not present. N Dominant Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 (Plot size:5 ft Radius N/A 0 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 0 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: - 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 0 0 0 0 0.00% Sample area consisted of a farm field dominated by a healthy crop of soybeans. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran/Hennepin Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 11/14/2019 Sampling Point:SP-CMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):None S:32 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X Sampling Point:SP-C Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0-6 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam 6-13 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X This area showed wetland sigantures in 40% of normal years in the offsite hydrology review. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 13-25 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX C Precipitation Information Corcoran, MN: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Monthly Totals: 2019 Target: T119 R23 S32 (latitude: 45.07299 longitude: 93.61477) mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre (inches) Jan 2019 86 119N 24W 29 NWS ROCKFORD .43 Feb 2019 86 119N 24W 29 NWS ROCKFORD 2.47 Mar 2019 86 119N 24W 29 NWS ROCKFORD 1.89 Apr 2019 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 3.16 May 2019 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 7.83 Jun 2019 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 2.64 Jul 2019 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 9.24 Aug 2019 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 5.60 Sep 2019 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 4.76 Oct 2019 86 119N 24W 29 NWS ROCKFORD 5.56 Nov 2019 86 119N 24W 29 NWS ROCKFORD 1.59 September/October/November Daily Records Date Precip. Sep 1, 2019 0 Sep 2, 2019 .07 Sep 3, 2019 .85 Sep 4, 2019 0 Sep 5, 2019 0 Sep 6, 2019 0 Sep 7, 2019 0 Sep 8, 2019 .05 Sep 9, 2019 .13 Sep 10, 2019 .35 Sep 11, 2019 .55 Sep 12, 2019 .80 Sep 13, 2019 .33 Sep 14, 2019 .02 Sep 15, 2019 0 Sep 16, 2019 0 Sep 17, 2019 0 Sep 18, 2019 .20 Sep 19, 2019 0 Sep 20, 2019 0 Sep 21, 2019 .33 Sep 22, 2019 .04 Sep 23, 2019 .04 Sep 24, 2019 0 Sep 25, 2019 T Sep 26, 2019 0 Sep 27, 2019 0 Sep 28, 2019 0 Sep 29, 2019 0 Sep 30, 2019 1.00 1981-2010 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT 30% 0.42 0.43 1.11 1.80 2.33 3.16 2.47 2.72 1.84 1.25 1.01 0.55 15.61 25.88 25.64 70% 0.78 0.89 1.85 3.01 4.06 4.96 4.32 4.86 4.52 3.15 1.89 1.43 20.64 32.11 32.55 mean 0.69 0.67 1.59 2.59 3.22 4.33 3.73 3.97 3.36 2.38 1.55 1.07 18.61 29.15 28.99 Date Precip. Oct 1, 2019 .81 Oct 2, 2019 .65 Oct 3, 2019 .44 Oct 4, 2019 T Oct 5, 2019 1.19 Oct 6, 2019 .13 Oct 7, 2019 0 Oct 8, 2019 0 Oct 9, 2019 0 Oct 10, 2019 .09 Oct 11, 2019 .56 Oct 12, 2019 .02 Oct 13, 2019 .03 Oct 14, 2019 T Oct 15, 2019 .16 Oct 16, 2019 T Oct 17, 2019 0 Oct 18, 2019 0 Oct 19, 2019 T Oct 20, 2019 0 Oct 21, 2019 .16 Oct 22, 2019 1.28 Oct 23, 2019 .04 Oct 24, 2019 0 Oct 25, 2019 0 Oct 26, 2019 0 Oct 27, 2019 0 Oct 28, 2019 T Oct 29, 2019 0 Oct 30, 2019 0 Oct 31, 2019 0 Date Precip. Nov 1, 2019 0 Nov 2, 2019 .12 Nov 3, 2019 T Nov 4, 2019 0 Nov 5, 2019 T Nov 6, 2019 0 Nov 7, 2019 0 Nov 8, 2019 0 Nov 9, 2019 0 Nov 10, 2019 .07 Nov 11, 2019 .01 Nov 12, 2019 0 Nov 13, 2019 0 Nov 14, 2019 .02 Site Visit Nov 15, 2019 0 Nov 16, 2019 0 Nov 17, 2019 .07 Nov 18, 2019 0 Nov 19, 2019 .13 Nov 20, 2019 0 Nov 21, 2019 .46 Nov 22, 2019 .01 Nov 23, 2019 0 Nov 24, 2019 0 Nov 25, 2019 0 Nov 26, 2019 0 Nov 27, 2019 .56 Nov 28, 2019 T Nov 29, 2019 0 Nov 30, 2019 .14 12/9/2019 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=451608&passYutm83=4991243&passcounty=Hennepin&pass…1/1 Minnesota State Climatology Office State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | about us Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Hennepin township number: 119N township name: Corcoran range number: 23W nearest community: Leighton section number: 32 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Thursday, November 14, 2019 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month:October 2019 second prior month:September 2019 third prior month:August 2019 estimated precipitation total for this location:5.32R 5.56R 4.99 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:1.25 1.84 2.72 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:3.15 4.52 4.86 type of month: dry normal wet wet wet wet monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * 3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)18 (Wet) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8/28/19 9/12/19 9/27/19 10/12/19 10/27/19 11/11/19 11/26/19Daily and monthly total precipitation (inches) monthly precip daily precip 30d rolling total 30 -day rolling total normal precip range Site Visit Climate Conditions 6210 Pioneer Trail Site, Corcoran Site Visit November 14, 2019 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX D Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Assessment Exhibit 1 Field data sheet reference (if applicable): Wetland Hydrology from Aerial Imagery – Recording Form Project Name: 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Date: 11/12/2019 County: Hennepin Investigator: A.Cameron Legal Description (S, T, R): S:32 T:119N R:23W Date Image Taken (M-D-Y) Image Source Climate Condition Image Interpretation(s) (wet, dry, normal)i Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area: A Area: B Area: C April 14, 1997 MN GEO Normal (1) NC/SS (1) SS (1) NC/SS (1) NC (1) NSS NSS SS (1) July 1, 2003 FSA Wet DO DO NC/DO N/A N/A DO/Washout DO April 17, 2006 MN GEO Normal (2) NC (2) NSS NC (2) WS (2) WS (1) NSS NSS July 1, 2008 FSA Normal, N/A N/A, Fallow N/A, Fallow N/A, Fallow N/A, Fallow N/A, Fallow N/A, Fallow N/A, Fallow July 1, 2009 FSA Dry NC NV NC NC NV SS NV July 1, 2010 FSA Wet NC NV NC NC/NV NV NV NV April 15, 2010 MN GEO Normal (3) NC (3) SS (2) NC (3) NC/SS (3) NSS SS (1) NSS April 1, 2012 MN GEO Normal (4) NC (4) SS (3) NC (4) NC (4) NSS SS (2) NSS July 1, 2013 FSA Wet NC DO NC NC/CS NV DO DO July 1, 2015 FSA Normal (5) NC (5) CS (4) NC (5) NC/CS (5) NV NV CS (2) April 15, 2016 MN GEO Dry NC/SS NS NC NC/NSS NSS NS NSS July 1, 2017 FSA Wet NC/CS DO/S NC/DO NC/DO CS CS CS Normal Climate Condition Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area: A Area: B Area: C Number of normal years 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Number with wet signa tures 5 4 5 5 1 2 2 Percent with wet signatures 100% 80% 100% 100% 20% 40% 40% KEY WS - wetland signature SS - soil wetness signature CS - crop stress NC - not cropped AP - altered pattern NV - normal vegetative cover DO - drowned out SW - standing water NSS – no soil wetness signature Other labels or comments: • Use above key to label image interpretations. It is imperative that the reviewer read and understand the guidance associated with the use of these labels. If alternate labels are used, indicate in box above. • If less than five (5) images taken during normal climate conditions are available, use an equal number of images taken during wet and dry climate conditions and use as many images as you have available. Describe the results using this methodology in your report. i Use MN State Climatology website to determine climate condition when image was take Exhibit 1 Field data sheet reference (if applicable):____________ Wetland Determination from Aerial Imagery – Recording Form Project Name: 6210 Pioneer Trail Site Date: 11/12/2019 County: Hennepin Investigator: A.Cameron Legal Description (S, T, R): S:32 T:119N R:23W Use the Decision Matrix below to complete Table 1. Hydric Soils present1 Identified on NWI or other wetland map2 Percent with wet signatures from Exhibit 1 Field verification required3 Wetland? Yes Yes >50% No Yes Yes Yes 30-50% No Yes Yes Yes <30% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present Yes No >50% No Yes Yes No 30-50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present Yes No <30% No No No Yes >50% No Yes No Yes 30-50% No Yes No Yes <30% No No No No >50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present No No 30-50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present No No <30% No No 1 The presence of hydric soils can be determined from the “Hydric Rating by Map Unit Feature” under “Land Classifications” from the Web Soil Survey. “Not Hydric” is the only category considered to not have hydric soils. Field sampling for the presence/absence of hydric soil indicators can be used in lieu of the hydric rating if appropriately documented by providing completed field data sheets. 2 At minimum, the most updated NWI data available for the area must be reviewed for this step. Any and all other local or regional wetland maps that are publically available should be reviewed. 3 Area should be reviewed in the field for the presence/absence of wetland hydrology indicators per the applicable 87 Manual Regional Supplement, including the D2 indicator (geomorphic position). Table 1. Area Hydric Soils Present Identified on NWI or other wetland map Percent with wet signatures from Exhibit 1 Other hydrology indicators present1 Wetland? Wetland 1 Yes Yes 100 Yes Yes Wetland 2 Yes Yes 80 Yes Yes Wetland 3 Yes Yes 100 Yes Yes Wetland 4 Yes No 100 Yes Yes Area A Yes No 20 No No Area B Yes No 40 No No Area C Yes No 40 No No, Washout 1 Answer “N/A” if field verification is not required and was not conducted. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (1997 MNGEO Photo: Normal Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary 1997 Wetland Signature Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2003 FSA Photo: Wet Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2006 MNGEO Photo: Normal Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary 2006 Wetland Signature Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2008 FSA Photo: Normal Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2009 FSA Photo: Dry Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2010 MNGEO Photo: Normal Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary 2010 Wetland Signature Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2010 FSA Photo: Wet Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2012 MNGEO Photo: Normal Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary 2012 Wetland Signature Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2013 FSA Photo: Wet Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2015 FSA Photo: Normal Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary 2015 Wetland Signature Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2016 MNGEO Photo: Dry Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B Offsite Hydrology Assessment Year (2017 FSA Photo: Wet Year) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Area A Area C Area B BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit: City of Corcoran County: Hennepin Applicant Name: Landspec Fund 2 LLC Applicant Representative: Adam Cameron, Kjolhaug Project Name: 6210 Pioneer Trail LGU Project No. (if any): Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 01/06/2020 Date of LGU Decision: 1/17/2020 Date this Notice was Sent: 1/17/2020 WCA Decision Type - check all that apply ☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase) ☐ No-Loss (8420.0415) ☐ Exemption (8420.0420) Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H Subpart: ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9 Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only) Total WCA Wetland Impact Area: Click here to enter text. Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits: ☐ Bank Credits: Bank Account Number(s): Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any) ☒ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☐ No TEP Recommendation LGU Decision ☐ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☒ Approved1 ☒ Denied List Conditions: Decision-Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other: Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify): 1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project - specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been reco rded on the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid. LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1. ☒ Attachment(s) (specify): Please see the Delineation Review Summary attached. ☐ Summary: 1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations. Attached Project Documents ☒ Site Location Map ☐ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): Figure 2-Existing Conditions BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 2 Appeals of LGU Decisions If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e -mail. The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why the decision is in error. Send to: Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 travis.germundson@state.mn.us Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision? ☐ Yes1 ☒ No 1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process. Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable) Notice Distribution (include name) Required on all notices: ☒ SWCD TEP Member: Stacey Lijewski , Hennepin SWCD ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Ben Carlson ☒ LGU TEP Member (if different than LGU contact): Kevin Mattson ☒ DNR Representative: Jason Spiegel ☒ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.: Elm Creek Watershed District ☒ Applicant: Landspec Fund 2 LLC ☒ Agent/Consultant: Adam Cameron, Kjolhaug Optional or As Applicable: ☒ Corps of Engineers: USACE_requests_mn@usace.army.mil ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only): ☐ Members of the Public (notice only): ☐ Other: Signature: Date: 1/17/2020 This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3. Site Meeting Record Wenck Associates, Inc. | 1800 Pioneer Creek Center | P.O. Box 249 | Maple Plain, MN 55359-0249 Toll Free 800-472-2232 Main 763-479-4200 Email wenckmp@wenck.com Web wenck.com - Boundary and Type Review Other __________________________________________ Site Name: 6210 Pioneer Trail Location: Corcoran, MN LGU: City of Corcoran Review Date/Time: 11/25/2019 11:00 and 01/14/2020 2:00pm Notes Attendees: Wes Boll (Wenck), Adam Cameron (Kjolhaug), Ben Carlson (BWSR) WCA TEP (Wes Boll, Corcoran & Ben Carlson, BWSR) met with the consultant (Adam Cameron, Kjolhaug) to review wetland boundaries submitted to the City of Corcoran on November 20, 2019. Four wetlands were identified on the site through off-site review and on-site investigation. An incomplete report consisting of the off-site aerial review summary and figures was submitted to allow for field review of the site prior to winter conditions. The TEP agreed to the field review and the Application will be noticed when a complete Delineation Report and Application Form is submitted. The off-site review was conducted on seven potential wetland areas on the site. The analysis determined that four of the seven areas met wetland criteria. The three areas (A, B, and C) were determined to be non-wetland since hydrology indicator signatures were observed in less than 50% of the normal years. The TEP reviewed the off-site analysis and had questions on Area B, Area C, and the boundaries of Wetland 2, 4, and 1. The TEP also identified potential signatures in an area just north of Area B. The investigated site was harvested or fallow agricultural ground at the time of the site visit. Conditions at the time of the delineation and site investigation were wetter than normal, with soil saturation and standing water present in many areas of the site. The TEP reviewed the field delineation by walking the site and confirming the location of delineated boundaries. In general, the TEP agreed with the delineation of wetland boundaries, as the boundaries corresponded approximately to the extent of wetland signatures on off-site analysis and indicators of wetland hydrology and cropping patterns. On January 6, 2020, Adam Cameron of Kjolhaug submitted a revised wetland delineation report with an additional parcel added to the Project Limits. The parcel added was located on the western edge of Wetland 1 as shown on Figure 2 – Existing Conditions. The additional area of Wetland 1 was delineated during the winter to help with the planning purposes of the client. The western edge of Wetland 1 is the approximate and conservative boundary as shown in Figure 2. If impacts to Wetland 1 are to occur during the construction phases of the project, the winter delineation 2 T:\2294-Corcoran\WCA\2019\6210 Pioneer Trail\Delineation Review Summary_11252019.docx portion of Wetland 1 will need to be delineated and approved during the growing season. Recommended Revisions: The TEP recommended additional review and potentially revision of some of the wetland boundaries on site. The TEP agreed with the placement of the boundaries of Wetland 4 and the non-wetland determination in Areas A, B, and C on the site, based on the lack of off-site hydrology signatures during normal years, landscape position, and cropping patterns during 2019 under extremely wet conditions. Wetland 2-The TEP recommended the south boundary of the wetland move to the south to encompass a depressional area that appeared to meet wetland hydrology criteria during the off-site analysis and site investigation. Wetland 1 and Wetland 4 – It appeared during the field investigation that the delineated boundaries were accurate, but the TEP requested a summary of the off- site hydrology signatures in comparison to the field delineated boundary in order to confirm the boundary. Recommended Approval Status: Conduct additional review, approve boundary and type as revised if necessary. Additional Potential Wetland Areas: There were no other potential wetland areas on the site that met wetland criteria based on the field visit. Other potential wetland areas (depressional areas and drainages with standing water) were determined to not meet wetland criteria during normal conditions. Action Items # Party Action Required Date Completed 1 Kjolhaug Review off-site and confirm boundaries (if necessary). Submit Delineation Report and Application Form 12-17-19 Revised Report sent 01-06-2020 2 City of Corcoran/Wenck Review submitted information and facilitate approval 01-17-2020 © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,500 Feet Site Boundary Source: ESRI Streets Basemap !( !( !( !(10301028 102610241022 10201018 1016 10141012101010321034 1036 1048 10381046104010501044 1042 1052 1054 10561008100610581004100210009981 0 6 0 10561020 10 5 8 10261058 10381016 1 0 5 6 10 5 6 1060104810581060 10581 0 5 6 10 5 0 1058 1028101010601 0 4 0 1 0 4 4 1004 1010 1032 105810 3 6 103 4 10 5 2 1026 1050 10161058 1012 1022 1 0 2 21052 1 0 4 2 10581010 1 0 5 4 1034104 6 1008 1016Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 MNGEO Photo) 6210 Pioneer Trail Site (KES 2019-179) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 300 Feet Site Boundary Winter Delineation Offsite Wetland Transect Wetland Boundary Erosional Rill !(Sample Point Culvert Hennepin County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland 1 1.75 Acres Wetland 3 0.33 Acres Wetland 4 0.47 Acres Wetland 2 0.60 Acres SP2-1Wet SP-C SP-A SP-B T4-1 T1-1 T3-1 Rill 1 Rill 5 Rill 4 Rill 3 Rill 2 Area D Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Appendix C FEMA FIRMette National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 1/21/2022 at 5:13 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 93°37'13"W 45°4'16"N 93°36'36"W 45°3'50"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Appendix D Phase I ESA Executive Summary Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Appendix E DNR NHIS Request for Concurrence Letter Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 7500 Olson Memorial Highway Suite 300, Golden Valley MN 55427-4886 January 31, 2022 File: 227704712 Attention: NHIS Review Division of Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 Saint Paul, MN 55155 Good afternoon, Reference: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW – NHIS Concurrence Request Landspec Fund 2, LLC is proposing to construct the Pioneer Trail Industrial Park (Project Site) located in Section 32, Township 119 North, Range 23 West in the City of Corcoran in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The proposed project involves the construction of five lots, two stormwater ponds, and a new road connecting all the lots to the existing Pioneer Trail, north of the intersection at Highway 55. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is required per Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, subpart 14. The Project Site currently consists of agricultural field and public road right-of-way (ROW) that is bordered by Highway 55 to the south, Pioneer Trail and residential housing to the west, agricultural fields to the north, and an agricultural field and commercial business to the east. The attached figures illustrate the location of the proposed project site. Table 1 below describes the proposed land uses for the five lots: Table 1. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Proposed Land Uses Proposed Lots Land Use Lot Size (Acres) Number of Buildings Building Size (Square Feet) Lot 1 Gas/Convenience 4.1 1 10,300 Lot 2 Office/Showroom/Retail 2.8 1 11,300 Lot 3 Office Warehouse/Light Manufacturing/Distribution 7.5 1 66,000 Lot 4 Office Warehouse/Light Manufacturing/Distribution 8.3 1 100,000 Lot 5 Storage Condominiums 27.3 6 379,000 Under Stantec’s Limited License to Use Copyrighted Material (LA 917, 140076) related to Rare Features Data, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) was searched in January 2022 to identify species within a one-mile radius of the project site. The NHIS search did not indicate any records within the proposed project site. Records of rare species were identified within in the one-mile review area. The following species information was gathered from the MN DNR Rare Species Guide (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html). January 31, 2022 NHIS Review Page 2 of 3 Reference: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) During the breeding season, trumpeter swans use small ponds and lakes or bays on larger water bodies that have approximately 100 meters of open water for take-off and have extensive beds of emergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. They will commonly use muskrat houses, beaver lodges, exposed hummocks, small islands, and floating platforms to construct their nests. Adult trumpeter swans are primarily herbivorous but will occasionally feed on small crustaceans, fish, and fish eg gs. Due to over hunting, Trumpeter swans in Minnesota were declared extirpated in the state in the mid -1900s. Reintroduction efforts began in the 1960s and a survey conducted in 2015 estimated the breeding population to be more than 17,000 individuals. Currently, the leading threat to their population is lead poisoning from lead shot and fishing sinkers but degradation of wetland habitat, power line collisions, and illegal hunting are also notable factors. Although repopulation efforts have continued to be successful, the trumpeter swam was included on Minnesota’s List of Endangered and Threatened Species List with the status of special concern due to continued threats to their population. The Project Site consists of active agricultural land and does not contain suitable breeding or feeding habitat for the trumpeter swan. Based on a review of the NHIS data, occurrences of trumpeter swans were associated with Morin Lake which is approximately 0.85 miles northeast of the Project Site. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the project is not anticipated to have an impact on the trumpeter swan. Native Plant Communities and Biodiversity Sites Native plant communities, biodiversity sites, and Central Region Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RESA) were reviewed for the area within one mile of the proposed Project Site. A native plant community (forested rich peatland system) is located approximately 0.55 miles east of the Project Site. Three sites of biodiversity significance ranked as moderate, and one ranked as below were identified within one mile of the Project Site. The three moderate ranked biodiversity sites are all located over 0.55 miles east and northeast of the Project Site and the one below ranked site is approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project Site. Four RESA sites extend into the one-mile review area. Of these, two are ranked as high and two ranked as moderate ecological areas. The closest moderate ranked RESA site is located on the south side of Highway 55 opposite of the Project Site. All work associated with this Project is proposed on the north side of Highway 55 and would not disturb this RESA site. The other moderate ranked RESA site is located approximately 0.65 miles northeast of the Project Site. The two high ranked RESA sites are approximately 0.5 miles south and 0.32 miles southeast of the Project Site. All of these RESA sites are located outside of the proposed Project Site and will not be encroached upon by the proposed project. Conclusion The proposed project site contains limited potential suitable habitat for rare plants, animals, native plant communities, and other rare features. The project would not result in remov al of suitable habitat for rare species or native plant communities as the project will be constructed within an area previously disturbed by active agriculture and public road ROW. Therefore, it is not anticipated that significant impacts to state-listed species or habitat would result from the proposed Pioneer Trail Industrial Park project. Per our license agreement and the requirements of the state environmental review, we are requesting the DNR’s concurrence with our review and assessment of the potential impacts from the project on known species documented in the NHIS database. The specific NHIS data evaluated as part of this review will not be distributed, mapped, or used within the EAW document or publicly distributed. The EAW will provide general explanatory text similar to that contained in this letter to document the species occurrence and potential impacts. January 31, 2022 NHIS Review Page 3 of 3 Reference: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park Please do not hesitate to contact me at 763.252.6802 or Erin.Sejkora@stantec.com should you have any questions. Thank you for your time. Regards, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Erin Sejkora Project Manager, Senior Planner Phone: 763.252.6802 Erin.Sejkora@stantec.com Attachment: Project Location Figures Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Appendix F Traffic Impact Study File #227704712 February 25, 2022 DRAFT Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 7963-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Prepared for: City of Corcoran, MN 8200 CR 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Traffic Impact Study for Pioneer Trail Industrial Park in Corcoran, MN February 2022 i DRAFT Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................ 4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 6-1 7.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................................ 7-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................. 2-2 FIGURE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................................................. 2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................. 3-2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................. 4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................. 4-4 FIGURE 6 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS ..................................... 5-5 FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS ..................................... 5-6 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________________________________ DATE: February 25, 2022 Edward F. Terhaar License No. 24441 February 2022 1-1 DRAFT 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the impacts of a proposed industrial park development located in Corcoran, MN. This study is part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. The project site is generally located on the north side of TH 55 east of Pioneer Trail. Based on discussions with City, this study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • TH 55/Pioneer Trail • TH 55/Rolling Hills Road • CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail • Pioneer Trail/development access The most intense development alternative consists of the following uses: • 100,000 square feet of light industrial • 66,000 square feet of light industrial • 11,300 square feet of retail • 379,000 square foot storage facility • Gas station with convenience store and 20 vehicle fueling positions All access will be provided at a new public street located approximately 500 feet north of TH 55 on Pioneer Trail. For purpose of this study, the development is expected to be completed in 2026. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed redevelopment is expected to generate 846 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 788 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 8,986 trips daily. • Traffic generated by the proposed development results in poor levels of service at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. • The results of a signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate th at warrants are met at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection. Based on this review, a full signal warrant analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) per Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) standards should be completed to confirm future traffic control. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by MnDOT. • The following mitigation measures are recommended at each intersection: o TH 55/Pioneer Trail ▪ Short term – Widen southbound approach to accommodate a dedicated left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Install traffic signal control. ▪ Long term – No additional improvements needed. February 2022 1-2 DRAFT o TH 55/Rolling Hills Road ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o Pioneer Trail/development access ▪ Short term – Construct westbound approach with dedicated left and right turn lanes. Construct a northbound right turn lane. ▪ Long term – No additional improvements needed. February 2022 2-1 DRAFT 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the impacts of a proposed industrial park development located in Corcoran, MN. This study is part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. The project site is generally located on the north side of TH 55 east of Pioneer Trail. The project location is shown in Figure 1. Based on discussions with City, this study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • TH 55/Pioneer Trail • TH 55/Rolling Hills Road • CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail • Pioneer Trail/development access Proposed Development Characteristics The most intense development alternative consists of the following uses: • 100,000 square feet of light industrial • 66,000 square feet of light industrial • 11,300 square feet of retail • 379,000 square foot storage facility • Gas station with convenience store and 20 vehicle fueling positions All access will be provided at a new public street located approximately 500 feet north of TH 55 on Pioneer Trail. For purpose of this study, the development is expected to be completed in 2026. The proposed development plan is shown in Figure 2. February 2022 2-2 DRAFT February 2022 2-3 DRAFT February 2022 3-1 DRAFT 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed project site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is bounded by TH 55 on the south, Pioneer Trail on the west, existing residential and commercial uses on the east, and agricultural uses on the north. Near the site location, TH 55 is a two lane undivided roadway with turn lanes and traffic signal control at major intersections. Pioneer Trail is a local two-lane roadway. Existing conditions near the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. TH 55/Pioneer Trail This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one shared lane for left turn, through, and right turn movements. TH 55/Rolling Hills Road This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the southbound approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through lane. The westbound approach provides one through lane and one right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one shared lane for left turn and right turn movements. CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through lane and one right turn lane. Traffic Volume Data Weekday traffic volume data was recorded at the existing intersections in January, 2022. Existing traffic volume data is presented later in this report. February 2022 3-2 DRAFT February 2022 4-1 DRAFT 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the years 2027 and 2040. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. • 2027 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2027 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on historic traffic volume growth in the project area. • 2027 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2027 No-Build volumes to determine 2027 Build volumes. • 2040 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2040 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on historic traffic volume growth in the project area. • 2040 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2040 No-Build volumes to determine 2040 Build volumes. Trip Generation for Proposed Project The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Light Industrial 100,000 SF 65 9 74 9 56 65 487 Light Industrial 66,000 SF 43 6 49 6 37 43 321 Retail 11,300 SF 16 11 27 37 37 74 615 Storage facility 379,000 SF 49 15 64 19 49 68 648 Gas station with convenience store 20 VFP 316 316 632 269 269 538 6915 Totals 489 357 846 340 448 788 8986 Notes: SF=square feet and VFP=vehicle fueling positions. February 2022 4-2 DRAFT The gas station trips can be categorized in the following trip types: • New Trips. Trips solely to and from the proposed development. • Pass-By Trips. Trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways immediately adjacent to the site. Based on information published in the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the percentage of each trip type is as follows: • Gas Station - 60% new, 40% pass by Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are described below: • 65 percent to/from the east on TH 55 • 20 percent to/from the west on TH 55 • 12 percent to/from the north on CSAH 19 • 3 percent to/from the west on Pioneer Trail Traffic Volumes Development trips from Table 4-1 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant peak hour volumes are shown in Figures 4 and 5. February 2022 4-3 DRAFT February 2022 4-4 DRAFT February 2022 5-1 DRAFT 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, b ut with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay r anges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffi c flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. February 2022 5-2 DRAFT The LOS results are shown in Figures 6 and 7 and described below. All LOS worksheets are included in the Appendix for further detail. 2022 Existing Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS TH 55/Pioneer Trail NB/SB stop A/E A/D TH 55/Rolling Hills Road SB stop A/C A/C CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail EB/WB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2027 No-Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS TH 55/Pioneer Trail NB/SB stop A/E A/E TH 55/Rolling Hills Road SB stop A/D A/D CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail EB/WB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2027 Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS TH 55/Pioneer Trail NB/SB stop F/F F/F TH 55/Rolling Hills Road SB stop A/E A/E CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail EB/WB stop A/C A/C Pioneer Trail/development access WB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. The southbound movements at TH 55/Pioneer Trail operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The northbound movements operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. The overall intersection operates at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. February 2022 5-3 DRAFT 2040 No-Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS TH 55/Pioneer Trail NB/SB stop A/F A/E TH 55/Rolling Hills Road SB stop A/D A/D CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail EB/WB stop A/B A/C Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. The southbound movements at TH 55/Pioneer Trail operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour. The overall intersection operates at LOS A during all scenarios. All other movements operate at LOS E or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2040 Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS TH 55/Pioneer Trail NB/SB stop F/F F/F TH 55/Rolling Hills Road SB stop A/F A/F CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail EB/WB stop A/C A/C Pioneer Trail/development access WB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. The southbound movements at TH 55/Pioneer Trail operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The northbound movements operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. The overall intersection operates at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The southbound movements at TH 55/Rolling Hills Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic Signal Warrants at TH 55/Pioneer Trail As shown above, the southbound movements and the overall intersection operate at LOS F during the 2027 Build and 2040 Build scenarios at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this location. The traffic forecasts for the 2027 Build scenario were used to analyze the peak hour and four-hour traffic signal warrants. These volumes include trips from the proposed project as well as other background traffic. The traffic volume forecasts were used to determine if specific warrants are satisfied based on published criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Con trol Devices (MMUTCD). Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) were assessed. Since the posted speed limits on TH 55 is 55 mph, the analyses presented consider reductions for speeds greater than 40 mph. The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are met at the intersection. Based on this review, a full signal warrant analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) per Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) February 2022 5-4 DRAFT standards should be completed to confirm future traffic control. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by MnDOT. Intersection Operations at TH 55/Pioneer Trail with Traffic Signal Control A potential mitigation measure for the operational issues shown at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection is traffic signal control. The updated intersection operation results assuming traffic signal control are shown below. Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results at TH 55/Pioneer Trail with Traffic Signal Control Scenario AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS 2027 Build B/C B/C 2040 Build B/D B/D Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All movements and the overall intersection operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both scenarios. Recommended Mitigation The following mitigation measures are recommended at each intersection: • TH 55/Pioneer Trail o Short term – Widen southbound approach to accommodate a dedicated left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Install traffic signal control. o Long term – No additional improvements needed. • TH 55/Rolling Hills Road o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. • CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. • Pioneer Trail/development access o Short term – Construct westbound approach with dedicated left and right turn lanes. Construct a northbound right turn lane. o Long term – No additional improvements needed. February 2022 5-5 DRAFT February 2022 5-6 DRAFT February 2022 6-1 DRAFT 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed redevelopment is expected to generate 846 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 788 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 8,986 trips daily. • Traffic generated by the proposed development results in poor levels of service at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. • The results of a signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate th at warrants are met at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection. Based on this review, a full signal warrant analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) per Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) standards should be completed to confirm future traffic control. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by MnDOT. • The following mitigation measures are recommended at each intersection: o TH 55/Pioneer Trail ▪ Short term – Widen southbound approach to accommodate a dedicated left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Install traffic signal control. ▪ Long term – No additional improvements needed. o TH 55/Rolling Hills Road ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o Pioneer Trail/development access ▪ Short term – Construct westbound approach with dedicated left and right turn lanes. Construct a northbound right turn lane. ▪ Long term – No additional improvements needed. February 2022 7-1 DRAFT 7.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Appendix G Feasibility Study PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY Draft March 2022 Prepared for: City of Corcoran, MN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Project Number: 227704712 PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Table of Contents March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1.1 TRANSPORTATION................................................................................................................ 2.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................... 2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 2.1 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................................................... 2.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 2.4 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 2.7 SEWER AND WATER ............................................................................................................. 3.1 WASTEWATER ....................................................................................................................... 3.1 WATER .................................................................................................................................... 3.2 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 3.3 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 4.3 REGULATORY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 4.3 WATERSHED SETTING AND LAND USE ............................................................................... 4.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 4.4 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 4.5 FINANCING ............................................................................................................................. 5.1 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 5.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 6.0 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................ 6.1 SEWER AND WATER ............................................................................................................. 6.2 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 6.3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation for Proposed Project Table 2. Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Table 3. Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Table 4. Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results Table 5. Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results Table 7. Model Results for Water Main Increase and New Tower PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Table of Contents March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A Comprehensive Plan (Sewer and Water) Appendix B Stormwater Modeling Guidelines PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Introduction March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 1.0 Introduction Landspec USA is a development group proposing to construct an industrial / warehouse development of over 500,000 square feet located on Pioneer trail and Pioneer Trail Industrial Park in Southwest Corcoran. The area was previously planned for a similar development in 2004/2005 so the change in landuse is under review for infrastructure impacts and needs related to mostly traffic drainage and stormwater with a review of sewer and water supply for future service. This Draft Feasibility Study is the basis for cost estimating on public infrastructure needs for the site and outcomes are incorporated into the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and that public process. Figure 1 shows the site layout. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 2.0 Transportation 2.1 Background This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: · TH 55/Pioneer Trail · TH 55/Rolling Hills Road · CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail · Pioneer Trail/development access 2.2 Proposed Development Characteristics For purpose of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed development is assumed to consist of the following uses: · 100,000 square feet of light industrial · 66,000 square feet of light industrial · 11,300 square feet of retail · 379,000 square foot storage facility · Gas station with convenience store and 20 vehicle fueling positions 2.3 Existing Conditions The proposed project site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is bounded by TH 55 on the south, Pioneer Trail on the west, existing residential and commercial uses on the east, and agricultural uses on the north. Near the site location, TH 55 is a two lane undivided roadway with turn lanes and traffic signal control at major intersections. Pioneer Trail is a local two-lane roadway. TH 55/Pioneer Trail - This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one shared lane for left turn, through, and right turn movements. TH 55/Rolling Hills Road - This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the southbound approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through lane. The westbound approach provides one through lane and one right turn lane. The southbound approach provides one shared lane for left turn and right turn movements. CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail - This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through lane and one right turn lane. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 Turn movement data was recorded at the existing intersections during the a.m. (6:00 – 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (3:00 – 6:00 p.m.) peak periods in January, 2022. These volumes were used in the development of traffic forecasts for the project. 2.4 Traffic Forecasts To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the years 2027 and 2040. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: · 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. · 2027 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2027 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on historic traffic volume growth in the project area. · 2027 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2027 No-Build volumes to determine 2027 Build volumes. · 2040 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2040 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on historic traffic volume growth in the project area. · 2040 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2040 No-Build volumes to determine 2040 Build volumes. The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Light Industrial 100,000 SF 65 9 74 9 56 65 487 Light Industrial 66,000 SF 43 6 49 6 37 43 321 Retail 11,300 SF 16 11 27 37 37 74 615 Storage facility 379,000 SF 49 15 64 19 49 68 648 Gas station with convenience store 20 VFP 316 316 632 269 269 538 6915 Totals 489 357 846 340 448 788 8986 Notes: SF=square feet and VFP=vehicle fueling positions. The gas station trips can be categorized in the following trip types: · New Trips. Trips solely to and from the proposed development. · Pass-By Trips. Trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways immediately adjacent to the site. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 Based on information published in the Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the percentage of each trip type is as follows: · Gas Station - 60% new, 40% pass by Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are described below: · 65 percent to/from the east on TH 55 · 20 percent to/from the west on TH 55 · 12 percent to/from the north on CSAH 19 · 3 percent to/from the west on Pioneer Trail Development trips from Table 4-1 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant peak hour volumes are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TH 55/Pioneer Trail EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 3 886 4 1 266 7 0 1 8 32 4 7 2027 No-Build 3 931 4 1 280 7 0 1 8 34 4 7 2027 Build 171 836 4 1 249 274 0 1 8 280 4 84 2040 No-Build 4 1060 5 1 318 8 0 1 10 38 5 8 2040 Build 172 965 5 1 287 275 0 1 10 284 5 85 TH 55/Rolling Hills Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 7 919 - - 278 4 - - - 16 - 7 2027 No-Build 7 966 - - 292 4 - - - 17 - 7 2027 Build 7 1117 - - 528 4 - - - 17 - 7 2040 No-Build 8 1099 - - 333 5 - - - 19 - 8 2040 Build 8 1250 - - 569 5 - - - 19 - 8 CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 4 0 10 8 5 15 7 107 1 21 295 1 2027 No-Build 4 0 11 8 5 16 7 112 1 22 310 1 2027 Build 4 10 11 8 11 44 7 112 1 66 310 1 2040 No-Build 5 0 12 10 6 18 8 128 1 25 353 1 2040 Build 5 10 12 10 12 46 8 128 1 69 353 1 Pioneer Trail/access EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing - - - - - - - 10 - - 43 - 2027 No-Build - - - - - - - 11 - - 45 - 2027 Build - - - 323 - 34 - 11 435 54 45 - 2040 No-Build - - - - - - - 12 - - 51 - 2040 Build - - - 323 - 34 - 12 435 54 51 - PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 Table 3 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TH 55/Pioneer Trail EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 2 346 7 11 881 44 5 2 9 6 1 1 2027 No-Build 2 364 7 12 926 46 5 2 9 6 1 1 2027 Build 80 332 7 12 850 273 5 2 9 259 1 145 2040 No-Build 2 414 8 13 1054 53 6 2 11 7 1 1 2040 Build 80 382 8 13 978 280 6 2 11 260 1 145 TH 55/Rolling Hills Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 4 357 - - 929 24 - - - 9 - 7 2027 No-Build 4 375 - - 976 25 - - - 9 - 7 2027 Build 4 596 - - 1127 25 - - - 9 - 7 2040 No-Build 5 427 - - 1111 29 - - - 11 - 8 2040 Build 5 648 - - 1262 29 - - - 11 - 8 CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 4 0 13 5 10 31 24 273 3 7 164 8 2027 No-Build 4 0 14 5 11 33 25 287 3 7 172 8 2027 Build 4 7 14 5 22 73 25 287 3 35 172 8 2040 No-Build 5 0 16 6 12 37 29 327 4 8 196 10 2040 Build 5 7 16 6 23 77 29 327 4 36 196 10 Pioneer Trail/access EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing - - - - - - - 46 - - 8 - 2027 No-Build - - - - - - - 48 - - 8 - 2027 Build - - - 397 - 51 - 48 305 35 8 - 2040 No-Build - - - - - - - 55 - - 10 - 2040 Build - - - 397 - 51 - 55 305 35 10 - 2.5 Traffic Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: · Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. · Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 · Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. · Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. · Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. · Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. The LOS results for the study intersections are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results TH 55/ Pioneer Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection 2022 Existing A A A A A A C C C E E E A 2027 No-Build A A A A A A C C C E E E A 2027 Build A A A A A A D D D F F F F 2040 No-Build A A A B A A D D D F F F A 2040 Build A A A B A A D D D F F F F TH 55/Rolling Hills Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing A A - - A A - - - C - C A 2027 No-Build A A - - A A - - - D - D A 2027 Build A A - - A A - - - E - E A 2040 No-Build A A - - A A - - - D - D A 2040 Build A A - - A A - - - F - F A CSAH 19/ Pioneer Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing B B B B B A A A A A A A A 2027 No-Build B B B B B A A A A A A A A 2027 Build C C B C C A A A A A A A A 2040 No-Build B B B B B A A A A A A A A 2040 Build C C B C C A A A A A A A A Pioneer Tr/access EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing - - - - - - - A - - A - A 2027 No-Build - - - - - - - A - - A - A 2027 Build - - - B - A - A A A A - A PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 2040 No-Build - - - - - - - A - - A - A 2040 Build - - - B - A - A A A A - A Table 5 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results TH 55/ Pioneer Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection 2022 Existing B A A A A A C C C D D D A 2027 No-Build B A A A A A C C C E E E A 2027 Build B A A A A A F F F F F F F 2040 No-Build B A A A A A D D D E E E A 2040 Build B A A A A A F F F F F F F TH 55/Rolling Hills Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing B A - - A A - - - C - C A 2027 No-Build B A - - A A - - - D - D A 2027 Build B A - - A A - - - E - E A 2040 No-Build B A - - A A - - - D - D A 2040 Build B A - - A A - - - F - F A CSAH 19/ Pioneer Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing B B A B B B A A A A A A A 2027 No-Build B B A B B B A A A A A A A 2027 Build C C A C C B A A A A A A A 2040 No-Build C C A C C B A A A A A A A 2040 Build C C A C C B A A A A A A A Pioneer Tr/access EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing - - - - - - - A - - A - A 2027 No-Build - - - - - - - A - - A - A 2027 Build - - - B - A - A A A A - A 2040 No-Build - - - - - - - A - - A - A 2040 Build - - - B - A - A A A A - A Traffic Signal Warrants at TH 55/Pioneer Trail As shown above, the southbound movements and the overall intersection operate at LOS F during the 2027 Build and 2040 Build scenarios at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this location. The traffic forecasts for the 2027 Build scenario were used to analyze the peak hour and four-hour traffic signal warrants. These volumes include trips from the proposed project as well as other background traffic. The traffic volume forecasts were used to determine if specific warrants are satisfied based on published criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) were assessed. Since the posted speed limits on TH 55 is 55 mph, the analyses presented consider reductions for speeds greater than 40 mph. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are met at the intersection. Based on this review, a full signal warrant analysis and Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) per Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) standards should be completed to confirm future traffic control. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by MnDOT. Intersection Operations at TH 55/Pioneer Trail with Traffic Signal Control A potential mitigation measure for the operational issues shown at the TH 55/Pioneer Trail intersection is traffic signal control. The updated intersection operation results assuming traffic signal control are shown below. Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results at TH 55/Pioneer Trail with Traffic Signal Control Scenario AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS 2027 Build B/C B/C 2040 Build B/D B/D Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All movements and the overall intersection operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both scenarios. 2.6 Findings The following mitigation measures are recommended at each intersection: · TH 55/Pioneer Trail o Short term – Widen southbound approach to accommodate a dedicated left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Install traffic signal control. o Long term – No additional improvements needed. · TH 55/Rolling Hills Road o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. · CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. · Pioneer Trail/development access o Short term – Construct westbound approach with dedicated left and right turn lanes. Construct a northbound right turn lane. Construct south bound left into development. o Long term – No additional improvements needed. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Sewer and Water March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 3.0 Sewer and Water 3.1 Wastewater As mentioned previously, the prior development (AUAR, 2004) was exploring sewer shared with Medina. Sewer from MCES is not currently available, therefore the development is proceeding under rural development (well/septic) infrastructure. This is discussed further below. · The closest existing City of Corcoran sanitary sewer is located approximately 3 miles east of this proposed development and eventually discharges to L80 near the Maple Grove border. The distance alone would render connection to this system impractical and not cost effective. Furthermore, the sewer system at that location was not designed to include wastewater from this proposed development. In the City’s previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, wastewater from this development and the surrounding area of Southwest Corcoran was anticipated to be served via a connection into Medina, which borders Pioneer Trail Industrial Park to the south of this development. However, when the City was working with the Metropolitan Council in preparing the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, it was realized that Medina had slowed their staging of sewer system development in areas towards SW Corcoran, and that both Medina and the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) no longer envisioned wastewater from SW Corcoran being directed through Medina (and generally eastward along Pioneer Trail Industrial Park). For this reason, Corcoran’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan states that the method and timing of regional wastewater service to Southwest Corcoran would be determined through future study. The potential options for regional service would be longer-term (over 10 years) and very high-cost options, resulting in the need for future study. · Another option that was suggested to Corcoran was to connect to the Loretto wastewater system. Loretto recently transitioned from operating their own permitted wastewater treatment facility (pond system) to a regionalized connection, i.e., they connected into the Tri-City wastewater forcemain, which is part of a local regional system that ultimately discharges wastewater from Independence, Greenfield and Medina into the regional sewer system located in Maple Plain. Operation of the Tri-City forcemain and the local regional system was modified to a Quad-City Agreement amongst Loretto, Greenfield, Independence, and Medina. Connection of the proposed Corcoran development into Loretto and the wider regional system is not viable for two reasons. First, the Quad City system was not designed to include significant future growth. Second, the infrastructure needed to reach the north edge of Loretto would likely not be cost effective, as it would require a lift station, approximately 1½ miles of forcemain, a directionally drilled/cased crossing of State Pioneer Trail Industrial Park, as well as long term operation and maintenance costs for the connecting infrastructure (plus a share of the local regional system costs). If the existing Loretto sewer system did not have enough available capacity to transfer this development-added flow to the south side of Loretto, additional force main length and a cased crossing of the railroad would also be required. · Given the above background, the most viable option is what is currently envisioned by the developer: installation of an individual subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) for each parcel. Given the typically clayey soils in the area, these systems would utilize septic tank(s), with treated effluent being pumped to mound systems for further treatment/infiltration. We understand that the developer has stated that they may install only a wastewater holding tank for Lot 5 (storage units), given minimal employee occupancy. Hennepin County is the governing authority for permitting and tracking the installation, operation, maintenance, and enforcement of all SSTSs in Corcoran. The County may or may not allow the holding tank, and may require an SSTS to be PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Sewer and Water March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 installed, which would be minimal in size. Lastly, it is noted that the gas station will have a somewhat higher-strength wastewater, which will likely require additional treatment unit(s) compared to the other lots. Again, this will be governed by the County. · The other potential option would be to install a community wastewater system, which would utilize one larger area for the infiltration area (mounds), rather than the smaller individual mound systems located at each lot, as currently shown. The developer would need to ensure that a suitable area that is large enough in size as determined by soil testing is included in the development design. This would also require working out a cost sharing agreement amongst the various lots for system installation and for long-term operation and maintenance, which could be somewhat more complicated by the fact that the gas station has an increased level of treatment needed. The community system approach is only noted as a potential option and is not necessarily recommended. The County would govern this approach and if system is large enough the MPCA would be involved. · At some point in the future, when Corcoran sewer and water systems are extended into this area, the City will require all of the lots to connect to City water and sewer systems. With this in mind, the developer must provide an 80-foot street ROW such that watermain can be installed along the south side of the road and gravity sewer can be installed along the north side of the road. This will prevent having to tear up the entire length of road for the future utility installation. Since wastewater would likely be routed by gravity to the very northern edge for routing into/through the parcels to the north, a permanent easement to install this future north-south gravity sewer should be installed from the north side of the road to the northern property edge (western corner thereof). 3.2 Water · The closest existing City of Corcoran potable watermain is located approximately 3 miles east of this proposed development. The distance renders connection to this system impractical, and would not be cost effective. Neighboring homes and businesses utilize private wells, and likewise, private wells are the most viable option for the proposed lots. Review of well logs for these neighboring homes and businesses suggest that wells located in this development would be completed in the quaternary buried aquifer (usually artesian). These wells are typically 4-inch diameter wells, completed in sand layers that are located at depths that suggest the well depths in the proposed development would be on the order of 150 to 200 feet. Test pumping is commonly indicated at 20 to 30 gallons per minute (gpm). Wells completed in the underlying bedrock would also be an option, though at a higher cost. · The developer will need to install fire protection systems in accordance with public safety requirements, as determined by the City’s designated fire marshal. This may require installation of water storage tank that would serve as a reservoir to supply a building’s fire suppression system. · Corcoran’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified a potential future well exploration area in the vicinity of this site. Although there are no plans to install a municipal well in the near term, the City may eventually install municipal well(s) in SW Corcoran. As such, the City requests dedication for siting a municipal well in the upland area just west of Building F of Lot 5, at the northern edge of the property. Given various well setback requirements and the need for the City to own the property within 50 feet of the well, the City would need an outlot designated for this purpose at the northern property edge (approximately 110 by 110-foot area), which would allow for the possibility of siting a future municipal well near the center of the outlot (along with a small wellhouse). An easement for a narrow access road would also be required between the street and the well site. At some point in the future, the City would install a test well to verify the suitability of this location PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Water Resources March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 for a municipal well (or conversely, to rule it out). If suitable, installation of the municipal well, wellhouse, and access road could occur at that time. · Lastly, as noted in the wastewater section, the developer must provide an 80-foot street ROW, which will provide an adequate width such that future City watermain can be installed along the south side of the road. 3.3 Findings The sewer and water review shows the following significant findings. · Future connections to sewer and water requires corridors and necessary easements that shall be coordinated with construction plans and platting. · 80 foot ROW along Street A would allow for future utility corridor. · An individual lot shall be platted and dedicated to the City for future water well exploration. 4.0 Water Resources 4.1 Regulatory Overview Stormwater management regulations in the proposed project area would be guided or directed by Corcoran’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (Local Plan) the City’s Guidelines, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and MS4 requirements. Each of these documents has a larger regulatory context: · The Local Plan reflects the goals, policies and rules of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission’s Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (Commission’s WMP). · The SWPPP is a requirement of the City’s stormwater permit, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The MS4 permit is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which was reissued in October of 2021. · Among other goals, both documents include plans to meet pollutant load reductions calculated in the Elm Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. TMDL studies are required for surface waters that are designated as impaired – in other words, those that do not meet one or more state water quality standards. · City guidelines lay out the required modeling parameters, preferred BMPs and some construction materials. City approval is required prior to application for the WMO approval process. Further City review occurs with construction plan approval process. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Water Resources March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 4.2 Watershed Setting and Land Use The majority of the proposed development is situated in the South Fork of Rush Creek watershed, and drains northward to Jubert Lake. Other parts of the development drain to the south under HWY 55 and northeast towards Horseshoe Bend Trail. Existing land use in the proposed development is agricultural and topography varies significantly. The MUSA districts have ongoing changes from agricultural to non-agricultural land use that presents both challenges and also opportunities to better manage stormwater runoff. This is true of the proposed development site, where land use will change from row crops to commercial/industrial. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) installed during construction will maintain or improve water quality towards Jubert Lake and manage runoff rates to equal or less than existing conditions. 4.3 Stormwater Management The development on the parcel previously proposed by United Properties (2004) converts the agricultural to large scale industrial/commercial. Agricultural use of the land would cease, replaced by both pervious open space and impervious surfaces that will impact stormwater runoff. Although elimination of agriculture can benefit water quality by reducing export of nutrients and sediments through onsite ponding and filtration (Best Management Practices or BMPs), construction of additional impervious surfaces, such as the roads, driveways, rooftops, and sidewalks increase the volume to nearby surface waters. Turn lane improvements to HWY 55 and Pioneer Trail would also increase impervious surface area and, like neighborhood roads and driveways, would require practices to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation is accomplished by aligning development plans with City requirements and WMO/MS4 stormwater regulations. Corcoran’s Local Plan, in agreement with the Commission’s WMP, requires that development plans over 1 acre disturbed area be submitted to the City and the Commission for review. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the developer’s plans for stormwater management during and after construction meet the Commission’s rules regarding the rate, volume and pollutant load of stormwater runoff, along with other rules regarding wetland alteration, erosion and sediment control and other aspects of surface water protection. The City focuses on rates of discharge, downstream impacts and long term construction sustainability. This adherence to Commission rules on water quality (BMPs) is one of the strategies Corcoran has chosen to also meet its TMDL obligations to reduce nutrients. The implementation plan calls on Corcoran to apply these standards when land use changes, a strategy that is predicted to have the net result of improving, or not further degrading, the water quality of stormwater runoff. Stormwater modeling guidelines are in Appendix B and may be updated prior to development’s final construction plan approval. Complementing the Local Plan, Corcoran’s SWPPP requires plan review, construction site erosion and sediment control, and post-construction stormwater management. Construction site inspections by the City’s consultant will begin with land-disturbing activity and end with final stabilization of PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Water Resources March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 exposed soils and City acceptance of the development. After construction, the City would enter an agreement with tany developer’s common area association or similar group to ensure that stormwater Best Management Practices continue to function and are maintained as intended. 4.4 Findings Onsite · Stormwater improvements are necessary within the development to meet City guidelines and in accordance with regulations of the WMO. · To move towards meeting load reduction goals, the City’s Local Surface Water Plan identifies that improvements to water resources will occur with development. Offsite Offsite conveyance impacts for the development will be further explored as follows: • Conveyance path to the north towards Jubert Lake for sustained flows from a majority of impervious land use, • Potential diversion away from Horseshoe Bend Trail (an older roadside system), and • Drainage paths under HWY 55, MnDOT approval and into Medina. Costs may be incurred offsite by the development for drainage/water resource needs and the City is exploring a stormwater fee that may be incorporated in 2022. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Financing March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 5.0 Financing 5.1 Summary Financing options of the development necessary for infrastructure and to mitigate impacts typically follow the approach of: · On-site infrastructure is managed by the developer · Although not currently available, all trunk sewer, water fees (TLAC), will be due at time services are made available to the site. · Stormwater fee may be implemented by City prior to final platting. · Off-site projects are typically managed by the by City (engineering, bidding and construction management) through an escrow provided by developer. The financial package will be further detailed and negotiated as the project moves forward and culminates in the overall Developer Agreement with the overall preliminary plat approval which is updated for each phase of the development. PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Conclusions and Recommendations March 2022 Project Number: 227704712 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The following infrastructure improvements are feasible and necessary to manage the development. These improvements are consistent with similar requirements for other developments in Corcoran, and have shown to be necessary for managing the additional population: Transportation · TH 55/Pioneer Trail o Short term – Widen southbound approach to accommodate a dedicated left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Install traffic signal control. o Long term – No additional improvements needed. · TH 55/Rolling Hills Road o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. · CSAH 19/Pioneer Trail o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. · Pioneer Trail/development access o Short term – Construct westbound approach with dedicated left and right turn lanes. Construct a northbound right turn lane. Construct south bound left into development. o Long term – No additional improvements needed. · Additional improvements may be necessary based on MnDOT review. Sewer and Water · Future connections to sewer and water requires corridors and necessary easements that shall be coordinated with construction plans and platting. · 80 foot ROW along Street A would allow for future utility corridor. · An individual lot shall be platted and dedicated to the City for future water well exploration. Water Resources · Offsite property and / or improvements may be necessary to manage the additional drainage and allow the City to implement compliance as identified in the City’s TMDL. · Stormwater fees may be in place prior to final platting and would be applied to the development. · Discharge to the Highway 55 ROW wil be required to receive MnDOT approval. FIGURE Site Plan f:\jobs\9821 - 9840\9824 - landspec - corcoran\cad\engineering\concepts\_corcoran - concept n_220211.dwgSave Date:02/11/221of1 CONCEPT PLAN N LANDSPEC USA 5229 Minnetoga Terrace Minnetonka, MN 55343REVISIONSDRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:ISSUE DATE:JTRJTR10/05/21PIONEER TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK Corcoran, MinnesotaNOTES1. 02/11/22 80' RIGHT OF WAY APPENDIX A Sewer and Water Comprehensive Plan Systems ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H City of Medina Wastewater connection point will be evaluated during the Crow River WWTP Study.City ofGreenfieldCity of Medina Scott Lake Jubert Lake Horseshoe TrlCounty Road 19Pio n e e r T r l H o rs e s h o e BendDrChe s t nut Dr RollingHillsRdKimberly LnWa g o n W he el L n County Road 50 65th Pl N Homestead TrlWinchester TrlJubertLnSW-A SE-AG SW-K SW-J SW-I SW-L SW-F SW-G SW-D SW-E SW-C SW-B SW-H SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 SW-5 (LS) SW-6 SW-7 (LS) SW-8 The method and timing of regional wastewater service to be determined through future study.24''8"18"12" 12"15" 8'' 456719 456750 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1,100 0 1,100550 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\SW Proposed Trunk Sanitary Sewer.mxd Date: 8/7/2019 Time: 8:15:33 AM User: ShuJC0243!Proposed Gravity !Proposed Gravity (Lateral)Proposed Forcemain !H Sewer Nodes (LS) = Lift StationSewer SubdistrictsMunicipal Boundary2040 MUSAFuture MUSA Expansion Area ! ! ! !Future Study AreaParcel BoundariesStreamsLake/Open Water Map 7-4Proposed Trunk SanitarySewer System - SW District 119 !O !O !O #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #*City of GreenfieldCityofMapleGroveCity of Medina City of Rogers Bechtold RdPio n e e r T r l TrailHavenRdCounty Road 116County Road 30 Schutte Rd Oakdale Dr County Ro a d 1 0 Horseshoe Trl Co u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd Willow DrHunterRdCounty Road 19Homestead Trl Cain RdRolling Hills RdCountry Rd Mohawk DrLarkin RdFoxline DrStrehler Rd Dassel Ln OldSettlersR d Stie g R d Kalk RdMeister Rd Maple Hill Rd93rd Ave N Tessmer Rd Blue Bonnet DrJubertLn456710 456750 456719 456730 4567116 4567101 4567117 Brockton Ln N109th Ave N 4567101 ")55 Hackamore Rd Morin Lake Scott Lake Jubert Lake Goose Lake Cook Lake 456710 R u s h C reekRushCreek South F o r k Ru sh Creek SouthForkR u sh C r eek2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\Trunk Water System.mxd Date: 1/15/2019 Time: 1:36:40 PM User: ShuJC0243 Existing WatermainProposed Watermain !O Potential Water Tower Locations #*Existing Supply Connection withNeighboring Communities #*Proposed Supply Connection withNeighboring Communities #* Emergency Connection withNeighboring Communities(Normally Closed) #*Potential Water Storage #*Potential Booster StationPotential Future Well Exploration AreasMunicipal Boundary2040 MUSAFuture MUSA Expansion AreaParcel BoundariesStreamsLake/Open Water Map 9-2Trunk Water System 137 APPENDIX B Stormwater Modeling Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines for Development March 2019 Issue Cities changing from rural to urban development are challenged by the additional stormwater generated due to construction of impervious surfaces, along with the offsite infrastructure, or lack thereof, to manage effectively. To standardize the modeling and review process, the guidelines below were created for efficiency. Note: A watershed approval is required per Elm Creek WMO rules, which also reviews flow rates, water quality and volume management. Modeling Watershed Information · Provide an aerial photo of the development that includes the overall watershed and subwatershed boundaries · Provide a summary of the acreage to each discharge point leaving the site. Any increase (or decrease) shall be identified. · Show any floodplain adjacent to project or within the project · Show downstream water bodies and flow paths o Downstream flow paths and water bodies typically need to have elevations, inverts, and condition identified. Subwatersheds A HydroCAD model (typically used) has inputs that can vary by user. To minimize resubmittals, review time and effort, the following data shall be utilized. · Electronic model shall be submitted · Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) shall be lowered one category due to the mass grading and compaction of the soils. For example, an existing B soil, shall be modeled as a proposed C soil (unless it remains undisturbed) · Wetlands, filtration basins, and ponds shall be modeled at CN of 98 · Identify peak rates for storm events and proposed shall be equal or less than existing rates. o Note: There are certain conditions where at City’s discretion the off-site conditions require a reduction in flow rate from existing rates. · SWMM (i.e. EPA-, XP-, or PC-) models can be submitted for review, however these increase review time. Model Setup for Outlet Control Structures, NWLs and Infiltration · The model’s flow control structures (OCS, culverts, etc.) shall match the construction plan information. During the plan and model review both may be modified and revised · Individual detail plates are required for each OCS, and individual plates shall have inverts identified · A pond or wetland NWL (and model starting elevation) shall be set at the constructed outlet control elevation. o No live storage shall be utilized below the controlling OCS elevation. o No live storage shall be used for filtration shelves on ponds below controlling OCS elevation · If a pond or wetland has an NWL (wet surface), infiltration shall not be used in flood routing. · If a pond has filtration BMP causing drawdown below the NWL, this drawdown elevation shall not be used as the NWL for flood routing. (Filtration has a slower release time and during wet periods is not available as live storage). Construction Plans Catch Basins · Street drainage shall be sufficient to manage the 10-year event · Typical a CB inlet capacity is 2 to 2.5 CFS, and CBs shall be spaced accordingly · Three inches (0.25 feet) of head on a CB will inundate a street centerline (2% slope). · Spacing is 200 to 250 feet using longitudinal street dimensions of 40 feet from road centerline to half the house footprint (assumes rear half of house drains to rear yard). Dimensions equal 10,000 SF. · CBs may be required on both sides of ped ramps to capture flows Natural Drainage Features · Waterbodies receiving urban drainage (wetlands, ditches, gullies) may need to have OCS installed, erosion protection, or reduced flow rates to allow the feature to function over the long term due to more consistent flows from increased impervious via development · Offsite work may be necessary and City will assist with coordination, easements, etc. HWLs and EOFs · The freeboard requirements are: o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the HWL o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the EOF · EOFs shall be accurately shown and as builts are required. The highest point shall be the EOF (for example top of curb) since this is the controlling elevation o In certain instances, channel calculations of the swale may be required to show the EOF has capacity to manage estimated flow · Overland EOFs are preferred, however if a second pipe serves as an EOF then modeling will include a 100-year event using the second pipe (EOF) as the only outlet (primary outlet plugged). Rear Yards · Rear yards or swales less than 2% shall have draintile. Typically, every two to three lots will require rear yard CBs. Sump Connections · Houses adjoining a wetland or pond do not need individual sump connection · Others will have access to rear yard stormsewer. Offsite Impacts Adjacent Parcels · City will review adjacent parcels (downstream and upstream) for impacts from volume, point discharge, etc. and may require off site improvements. City will assist in coordination of any off site work. · Off site water quality improvement projects may be determined by the City for assistance with compliance with City’s TMDL approach of implementing improvements upon development. · FEMA modifications may be necessary due to development and implemented by City. Pioneer Trail Industrial Park EAW Appendix H SHPO Response Letter MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER February 22, 2022 Kendra Lindahl City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55357 RE: Pioneer Trail Industrial Park 6210 Pioneer Trail, Corcoran, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 2022-0773 Dear Kendra Lindahl: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project. Information received on January 26, 2022, has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Office by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act (M.S. 138.666). Based on information that is available to us at this time, we have determined that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archaeological properties located in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. If you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Program Specialist, at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Sarah J. Beimers Environmental Review Program Manager 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 7h. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kevin Shay through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 18, 2022 for the May 26, 2022 City Council Meeting RE: Preliminary Plat and Variance for Kariniemi Meadows at 23185 County Road 10 (city file 22-013) 1.Description of Request The applicant, Nate Kariniemi, is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to create 9 rural residential lots on the 124.5-acre property. Lot 10 is the remaining area west of the rural residential lots and it does not show a home site. Lot 10 should be platted as Outlot A. Outlot A will retain four development rights and may be platted in the future. 2.Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 5th. One person spoke at the public hearing regarding concerns with drainage and tree preservation. The applicant was also present and addressed questions during the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the item and voted 4-0 (Shoulak absent) to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and variance. 3.Context The site is an existing 124.5-acre lot with a single-family residential structure on the northeast corner of the site. There are 13 development rights on the property. Zoning and Land Use The site is guided Rural/Ag Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RR (Rural Residential). A shoreland overlay district runs through the center of the property for Rush Creek. Surrounding Properties The properties to the east, south and west are guided Rural/Ag Residential and zoned RR (Rural Residential). The properties to the north are guided Rural Service/Commercial and zoned CR (Rural Commercial). The public works facility is surrounded by this property on the western portion of the site. Natural Characteristics of the Site Rush Creek runs through the center of the site and creates a larger floodplain area. There are natural plant communities on the site identified as a high-quality maple/basswood area on the Natural Resource Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 2 May 26, 2022 Inventory Areas Map in the Comprehensive Plan. Multiple wetlands are shown on Hennepin County’s Natural Resources mapping software as shown on the Site Location map. 4. ANALYSIS: Preliminary Plat Development Rights The site has 13 development rights. The applicant’s proposal shows 9 residential lots with the four remaining development rights being assigned to Lot 10, which is to be renamed to Outlot A, for future development. Lot Standards The plat shows compliance with the RR for all lots except Lot 1, which requires the following minimum standards: RR (Rural Residential) Lot Area 2 acres Minimum Lot Width 200 feet Minimum Lot Depth 300 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 feet Front, From all other streets 50 feet Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 40 feet Side 25 feet Rear 25 feet Adjacent to Residential n/a Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. **Minimum separation between structures on adjacent parcels shall be 15 feet. The applicant has requested a variance from the lot depth requirement for Lot 1 which is discussed later in the report. Lot 2 does not meet the lot width standard of 200 feet and a revised plat showing 200 feet of lot width must be submitted. Shoreland The shoreland overlay district for Rush Creek applies to the area within 300 feet of the ordinary high- water level of Rush Creek or the landward extent of floodplain of the river, whichever is greater. The boundary of the shoreland overlay is indicated on the plans. The boundary of the shoreland may change if the floodplain associated with Rush Creek is revised. This is included in the engineer’s memo. The Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 3 May 26, 2022 standards for setbacks, structure height and impervious effect the rear portion of Lots 3-9. The applicant complies with these shoreland requirements in Section 1050.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. Floodplain The site includes a large area of floodplain and the plans indicate the boundary of the 100-year flood area. The applicant will need to revise the plans to indicate the areas that are considered floodway, flood fringe and general floodplain as defined in Section 1050.030 Subd. 3. Based on the revised boundaries of the districts covering the property, the corresponding standards from Section 1050.030 shall apply. All areas within the floodplain boundary shall be covered with a drainage and utility easement. Transportation/Access The applicant is proposing a single public street access to serve the residential lots. The street serving the residential lots should be renamed to Ellery Lane to be consistent with the City’s street naming policy. All access locations and required improvements (including potential turn lanes) are subject to Hennepin County review and approval. A comment letter is attached from Hennepin County which requires dedication of the 50-foot half right of way and a right turn lane. Hennepin County notes that a left turn lane would be necessary when the property to the east develops but that would be done by the developer of the property to the east. Trails and Sidewalks There is an existing on-road trail in the County Road 19 right-of-way and this trail is separated from the street by a landscaped boulevard. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has a proposed on-road trail shown along the northern boundary of this property on the south side of County Road 10. The County has requested a 10-foot trail easement beyond the right-of-way be included for the on-road trail. The Parks and Trails Plan map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies a proposed off-road trail that runs along the Rush Creek corridor. A proposed off-road trail is shown along the western side of Rush Creek. Staff is recommending the trail connection be extended along the south side of the property from Rush Creek out to County Road 19. City policy is to require an 8-ft. wide trail in a 20-ft wide easement for off-road trails and give credit for the net area (gross area minus wetlands and areas below the 100-year ordinary high water elevation) of off- road trails shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The trail easement is located almost entirely within the floodplain and the majority of the current easement location will not qualify for park dedication. Furthermore, the location of the trail in the floodplain means it will be susceptible to flooding. The Parks Commission recommended that the trail be a wood chip or mown trail that can flood. This type of trail would limit accessibility to residents with physical challenges and is more challenging for bicyclists and people with strollers to navigate, but allows better access to the creek as an amenity. The Parks Commission also recommended that the trail make a connection to County Road 19 along the southern boundary of the property and an additional trail connection to County Road 19 along the northern most portion of the property abutting County Road 19. This would create a looped trail utilizing the on-road trail along County Road 19. Staff recommends that the southern extension be provided with this plat and the northern loop be deferred until Lot 10 (to be platted as Outlot A) is subdivided in the future. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 4 May 26, 2022 Park Dedication Calculation Under the current ordinance, park dedication of land is required at 4% of the net pre-development area for Rural/Ag Residential land. Park dedication is only taken for newly created lots (9 new lots). The ordinance would require 1.98 net acres of park dedication for the 49.5 net acres (124.54 gross acres) being platted. The applicant would need to provide the final acreage as part of the final plat application. As requested through the sketch plan, the applicant provided a trail easement along the western side of Rush Creek. This easement measures approximately 3,107 ft. long and 20 ft. wide. The applicant’s proposed trail easement is 1.43 (gross) acres in size. A large portion, approximately 1.3 acres, of this trail easement is located within the floodplain and will not receive park dedication credit. Staff and Parks Commission are recommending additional areas for trail as noted above and the applicant will need to provide revised plans and calculations for the trail easement and the portion of the trail easement located within the floodplain as part of the final plat application. The developer would pay park dedication as cash-in-lieu for the remaining value of park dedication required. For residential developments, the current cash-in-lieu of land fee has been calculated on the per capita share of park system costs at $4,628 per single family unit. This calculation is shown below. The proposed trail easement provides a connection between the existing trail easement and the proposed public right of way. The calculations below outline the park dedication fees for each use based on the current plan and the staff recommended plan. Staff recommends the City accept the amended trail easement and the remainder of the park dedication be cash-in-lieu of land. If the City followed the adopted policy to only give credit for net trail area and pay the remaining as cash-in lieu of the park dedication fee would be as follows: 9 Single Family Units x $4,628 = $41,652 Dedicated Park Land Credit = To be calculated TOTAL = $41,652 or less The final park dedication calculation will be based on final land area calculations and the fee schedule in place at the time of release of the final plat. Staff will continue to work with the applicant between the preliminary and final plat to update plans to appropriately accommodate the proposed off-road trail. Utilities The entire site is located outside the MUSA and will be served with well and septic. Ponding Stormwater ponding can be provided on site in compliance with local and state requirements. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 5 May 26, 2022 Wetlands There are a number of wetlands on site. The applicant shows the wetland buffer and setback requirements in compliance with Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. Additional wetland buffer areas are noted on the plans. Wetland buffer monument signs are shown on the plans and some sign adjustments are required to meet the City Code. The applicant shall submit a buffer restoration planting plan consistent with the requirements in Section 1050.010 Subd. 8 with the application for final plat for review and approval. Variance The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum 300 foot lot depth for Lot 1 required by Section 1040.030 Subd. 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot depth is defined as, “The mean horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line of a lot.” The definition of lot depth means that while a lot may meet the minimum lot depth at one point on the lot it is measured over the entire lot and averaged. Given the unique shape of Lot 1 this makes it very difficult to meet the minimum lot depth without substantial changes to the road alignment that are limited by the proximity to Rush Creek. Staff would like to note that the variance was not identified and discussed with the concept plan due to the applicant’s consideration of an OS&P plat which does not have a minimum lot width or depth standard. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that all of the following criteria from Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B), have been met and the applicant’s responses to the variance criteria are included in quotes below: A. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. “There are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance other than economic as the stormwater pond on the west side of the lot can be shifted but not moved. At the point of shifting the pond (and the road) it would create an awkward, longer road with a sharp 90 degree bend. Even if these changes were accomplished the future driveway would still come from the North.” Staff believes there is a practical difficulty in complying with the definition of lot depth. Lot 1 meets the minimum lot depth requirement when measured at the deepest part of the lot. B. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 6 May 26, 2022 “The conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The stormwater is an existing condition. The engineering standard requires the water be ponded somewhere in the vicinity.” The definition for lot depth was not created by the applicant and the characteristics of the site with the Rush Creek and the wetland and floodplain restrictions it creates were not created by the applicant. C. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. “The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character is unaffected. The essential nature of the lot is that the “front” (as determined by where the future driveway will come in not the technical definition) will be 200+ ft wide with a 300+ feet deep back yard – i.e. a driveway cannot be built through a stormwater pond so the driveway must come through the northern boundary. Yes the variance requested swaps the width and depth dimensions but that is because the front yard is to the north along the road – not to the west where the stormwater ponds.” The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The lot size meets the minimum standards and will be used for single family home similar to the other lots. D. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. “The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance because the Rural Residential district enjoys backyards of a 300 foot depth and for all visual, noise, setback and layout purposes this will be accomplished with the entrance to the home from the North.” Staff believes the request to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as it was meant to establish minimum standards for buildable lots and the “mean” language does not function as intended in this case. E. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. “The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the lot will still meet the minimum size and other requirements. For the most part this variance does not seem to have any effect on future comp planning.” The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Rural/Ag Residential future land use guidance for the property. F. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. Staff has not included any conditions on the variance. Kariniemi PP and VAR (22-013) 7 May 26, 2022 With the findings given above, staff believes the variance criteria has been met. 5. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Resolution 2022-62 approving the preliminary plat and variance for “Kariniemi Meadows”, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Attachments 1. Resolution 2022-62 approving the preliminary plat and variance for “Kariniemi Meadows” 2. Site Location Map 3. City Engineer’s Memo dated April 22, 2022 4. Hennepin County memo dated March 21, 2022 5. Preliminary Plat dated February 24, 2022 6. Landscape Plan dated February 24, 2022 7. Ghost Plat dated February 24, 2022 City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-62 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR “KARINIEMI MEADOWS” AT 23185 COUNTY ROAD 10 (PID 18-119-23-11-0002) (CITY FILE NO. 22-013) WHEREAS, Nate Kariniemi (“the applicant”) has requested approval of a preliminary plat and variance for “Kariniemi Meadows” a rural residential plat on property legally described as follows: Outlot A, Roehlke Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a preliminary plat and variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved to create nine lots and one outlot for “Kariniemi Meadows”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on February 4, 2022 and revisions received on February 24, 2022, March 23, 2022 and April 5, 2022 and except as amended by this resolution. 2. Lot 10 shall be platted as Outlot A as no development is proposed at this time. 3. Outlot A shall contain the remaining 4 development rights. 4. Park dedication is due and shall be cash-in-lieu of land, prior to release of the final plat for recording. Final park dedication amounts will be based on the fee schedule in place at the time the final plat is released for filing. a. The applicant shall provide final alignment and net area calculations for the off- road trail and shall receive park dedication credit for the net area of the trail. 5. The applicant shall revise plans to show the off-road trail connecting to County Road 19 along the south side of the property. 6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo, dated April 22, 2022. 7. The applicant must comply with Hennepin County comments dated March 21, 2022. 8. The plat shall be revised to show a minimum of 200 feet of lot width on Lot 2. 9. The applicant shall revise plans to show the different floodplain classifications. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-62 Page 2 of 3 10. The street shall be renamed to Ellery Lane. 11. The applicant shall include additional wetland buffer monument signs to indicate the boundary of the wetland buffer for review and approval by city staff. 12. The applicant shall submit a wetland buffer restoration plan with the final plat application for review and approval by city staff. 13. The variance to allow a reduced lot depth for Lot 1 as shown on the plans is approved, based on the following conditions: a. There is a practical difficulty in complying with the definition of lot depth. Lot 1 meets the minimum lot depth requirement when measured at the deepest part of the lot. b. The definition for lot depth was not created by the applicant and the characteristics of the site with the Rush Creek and the wetland and floodplain restrictions it creates were not created by the applicant. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The lot size meets the minimum standards and will be used for single family home similar to the other lots. d. The variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as it was meant to establish minimum standards for buildable lots and the “mean” language does not function as intended in this case. e. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Rural/Ag Residential future land use guidance for the property. 14. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of a final plat. 15. The final plat application shall include a revised preliminary plat addressing all conditions of preliminary plat approval. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-62 Page 3 of 3 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Date: 9/14/2021 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2021 1 inch = 800 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI PID: 1811923110002Address: 23185 Co Rd No 10, Corcoran 55374 Owner: Willow 1 Llc Acres: 124.54 ¯ Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Kariniemi Meadows – Preliminary Plat Review Date: April 22nd, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Landscape Plan Kariniemi Meadows, Dated February 24, 2022, 2. Preliminary Plat Kariniemi Meadows, Dated February 24, 2022 3. Ghost Plat Lot 10 Kariniemi Meadows, Dated February 24, 2022 4. Stormwater Report Kariniemi Meadows, Dated February 24, 2022 Comments: General: 1. The City process requires the applicant to submit a written response to this memorandum. Submit the written response with revised plans. 2. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to additional planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City. 3. For any site activity (demo, grading, utilities, etc.) no closures or restrictions of any kind shall be imposed upon the public use of County Road 10 without Hennepin County’s permission. Should any lane restrictions be necessary, the Contractor shall notify Hennepin County at least 48 hours in advance and provide a Traffic Control Plan. 4. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the City or County ROW or easements. 5. Individual grading plans need to be shown for each lot to ensure that the grading is possible and that grading will not impact adjacent lots. 6. When accommodating plan comments, septic areas shall not be located in D&U easements. 7. Septic plans shall be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. 8. The septic sites for Lot 3 are separated from the build site by a low wetland. Verify piping routes and cover based on home location and elevations. Plat: 1. Drainage and Utility easements shall encompass the 100-year floodplain. Please expand D&U easement as necessary, notably in Lot 3. 2. Conservation easements are necessary over the wetland buffers where the buffers are used as watershed BMPs. Provide copies of conservation easement documents. 3. Wetland buffer sign locations will be reviewed by Planning. 4. Much of the area designated as wetland buffers proposed are currently agricultural cropland. All wetland buffer areas will be required to remain vegetated and will require a restoration planting plan. April 22, 2022 Kariniemi Meadows Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 3 Erosion Control/SWPPP 1. Preparation of and compliance with a SWPPP in accordance with MPCA requirements shall be required for construction. Transportation 1. Hennepin County should review and approve the proposed 8’ wide widening of County Road 10 and any other work in their right-of way. Submit copy of County permit to City. 2. Hennepin County shall review and approve of the extension of the existing culvert underneath County Road 10 and the methods in which that connection will be made. Site Plans 1. Easements shall be provided over all wetlands, floodplain, storm sewer pipes/ponding. Easements shall be shown on all plan sheets to ensure they are adequate. Grading /Stormwater 1. No wetland impacts are shown on the proposed plan. If wetlands are impacted with future submittals, they shall be reviewed and approved through the appropriate WCA permitting process. 2. Elm Creek will review and approve if the additional wetland buffer will be acceptable as the stormwater treatment BMP for the site. If filtration or biofiltration is required, the City requires that NURP ponds with filtration benches or shelfs be used. 3. Additionally, if permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds are used they shall be designed to the Wet Pond Design Standards set forth on Appendix A of the Elm Creek Rules and provide: (1) Water quality features consistent with NURP criteria and best management practices. (2) A permanent wet pool with dead storage of at least the runoff from a 2.5‐inch storm event. 4. The current MIDs version is 4.0. Please use the most current version of MIDs. Additionally, the values used in existing conditions are not appropriate. The MN stormwater manual indicates that their review was not adequate to recommend an EMC for cropland TSS or TP. How were these values selected? Open space shall be 21 mg/L for TSS and 0.19 mg/L for TP. Residential areas EMC shall be 73mg/L for TSS and 0.325 mg/L for TP. Forest areas shall be 72 mg/L for TSS and 0.090 mg/L for TP. 5. Existing conditions CN value ¼ Acre lots assume 38 percent impervious. Current impervious measurement shows the farmstead to be 30 percent impervious over the 2-acre lot. Modeled impervious should be measured based off take off areas. 6. Proposed conditions impervious lot area should be measured based off proposed house footprint and driveway projection with length from the garage to the proposed road connection. House lot impervious varies too much per lot to accurately estimate impervious using TR-55 CN default impervious percentages based off lot size. As an example, Lot 8 has an approximately 3,000 square foot building pad and a 20-foot driveway would have an estimated impervious of .35 acres. While Lot 1 would estimate approximately 0.11 acres. 7. Modeling shows Subcatchment E2 impervious area as .92 Acres while Subcatchment P7 shows an increase to 2.29 acres. This also applies to P10. 8. Explain the use of ”Fair Condition” for Woods Land use. Most land uses are considered to be in good condition unless ground cover can be proven otherwise. April 22, 2022 Kariniemi Meadows Kevin Mattson Page 3 of 3 9. Modelled CN value for Meadow (71) should be changed to Open Space – Good Conditions HSG D (74). 10. Provide County Road 10 overtopping elevation for the culvert discharging to the north. 11. Model OCS slanted grates as custom orifices. Current model shows horizontal orifices which overestimate flows around the invert elevation set. City can provide more information upon request. 12. Update runoff table to match the HydroCAD flow rates. Example - Existing North shows 9.02 cfs while the model shows 9.57 cfs. 13. Match the P4 culvert inverts between the plans and the model. 14. Update model for Pond 4. Current plans for the outlet device shows a 15” RCP while the model uses a 12” RCP as the outlet. 15. Update Pond 2 plans to match the modeled 100-year HWL. Elevations of Lots 7 and 8 should be updated to meet separation requirements. 16. Pond EOF’s need to be set 1.0’ above the HWL. Example - Stormwater Pond 1 has a HWL of 998.5 and an EOF of 998.5. 17. EOF grading shall be reflected on contour grading plan. 18. The following freeboard requirements are: o WMO rules require Low floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100-yr HWL. Example - Lots 1 and 4 do not meet the separation requirements. o Low Opening is a minimum of one foot above the EOF o Top of Berm/Pond is a minimum of one foot above the EOF. Example Pond 3 shows top of berm at 996 and an EOF at 995.5. Top of berm elevations shall be clearly identified around the entire perimeter of the ponds. 19. Show maintenance access routes to ponds on plans. Routes shall be 12’ wide and sloped to accommodate maintenance vehicles. This route shall also be encompassed within an easement. 20. Provide a minimum of 2 feet of cover for Chapparal Lane culvert crossings. Current culvert crossing under Chapparal Lane at 6+00 has only 1.16 ft of cover. 21. Storm sewer plan and profile must be provided for final plat review. 22. Show mapped floodway within the plans. 23. The proposed 20’ wide trail needs to be outside of the mapped floodway. 24. Provide 2% slope in all swales. Example: The swale at Sta 7+00 to Sta 8+00 east of Chaparral Lane is only at 1.74% 25. Show elevations more clearly east of stormwater Pond 4 in lot 1. 26. City requires that all structures, including accessory structures, additions to existing structures, and manufactured homes, shall be constructed so that the basement floor, or first floor if there is no basement, is at least 2 feet above the regional flood elevation. 27. If any grading is proposed in the floodplain or below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE - which ranges from 994.0-992.0 from south to north on the property) this triggers a separate floodplain process involving compensatory storage and City/WMO approvals. 28. Elm Creek HUC-8 DNR Study is in progress. This study will have updated floodplain modeling and mapping which will eventually replace the current effective model and mapping. City provides this information as a courtesy to Kariniemi development to consider in their development process. End of Comments Hennepin County Transportation Project Delivery Public Works Facility, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55340 612-596-0300 | hennepin.us March 21, 2022 Ms. Kendra Lindahl, AICP Principal Consultant City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Re: Preliminary Plat Review – Kariniemi Meadows (Received 2/28/22) County State Aid Highways (CSAH) 10 and 19 Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3922B (Reviewed 3/08/22) Ms. Lindahl: Please consider the following comments of this preliminary plat to develop 124 acres into nine single-family homes along CSAH 10, preserving wetlands, and potential future phase(s) of development along CSAH 19. Access: County staff support the proposed access to CSAH 10 on Chaparral Lane. For safety and operations purposes, a full eastbound right-turn lane will be required at this access. County staff will need to approve a complete turn lane plan set prior to permitting. Chaparral Lane will also need to provide access for future development to the east, which may require a westbound left-turn lane on CSAH 10. Right-of-way: We support the proposed 50-foot half right-of-way dedication along CSAH 10. A 10-foot trail easement is recommended to be included with the drainage and utility easement to provide space for maintenance access to the Rush Creek culvert under CSAH 10 and a potential future trail connection to the regional trailhead ½-mile to the west. Please ensure the existing trail remains entirely within public right-of-way or trail easement(s) along CSAH 19. Storm Water/Drainage: Please ensure stormwater discharge rates remain less than existing flow rates. The county storm water system will not take water from new drainage areas. Additional treatments may be necessary if flow rates cannot match existing. Contact: Eric Vogel at 612-596-0316 or eric.vogel2@hennepin.us Permits: Please inform the developer that all construction within county right-of-way requires an approved county permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Please ensure the applicant coordinates with the county for the right-turn lane and any utility work. Contact: Michael Olmstead, Permits Coordinator at 612-596-0336 or michael.olmstead@hennepin.us Please contact Jason Gottfried at 612-596-0394, jason.gottfried@hennepin.us for any further discussion. Sincerely, Carla Stueve, PE County Highway Engineer He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Da te : 3/3 /2 02 2 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 8 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 18 119 23 110 00 2 OWN ER N AME: W illow 1 Llc PAR CEL AD DRESS: 2 318 5 Co R d N o 10 , C or co ran MN 55 37 4 PAR CEL AR EA: 12 4.54 a c res , 5 ,424 ,987 sq ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $1,20 0,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 5/20 21 SAL E C OD E: Wa rr anty D e ed ASSESSED 20 20 , PAYABLE 202 1 PROPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial H OM ESTEAD : N on -H ome stea d M AR KET VAL UE: $94 0,40 0 TAX TO TAL: $1 0,867 .94 ASSESSED 20 21 , PAYABLE 202 2 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial HO MESTEAD: No n-H om es te ad MARKET VALU E: $1 ,2 35 ,6 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not s uitable for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 2 CREEK 34567821019COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANEBLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 DITCH RUSHCOUNTY ROAD NO. 19 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - OVERVIEWKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN19PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSNVicinity MapFeet0200400I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 45678109COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANEBLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 RU S H CREEK 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comNFEET010020029PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSI hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ CREEK 34567821019COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANEBLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 DITCH RUSHCOUNTY ROAD NO. 19 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - OVERVIEWKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN19PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSNVicinity MapFeet0200400I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 45678109COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANEBLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 RU S H CREEK 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - NORTHKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comNFEET010020029PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSI hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ RUSH CRE E K 3452101BLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 DITCH COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 2-18-22PRELIMINARY PLAT - SOUTHKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN2001000FEET39PRELIMINARY PLAT OF KARINIEMI MEADOWSI hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ COUNTY ROAD NO. 10CHAPARRAL LANE COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 45678109BLOCK 1RU S H CREEK 2-18-22KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com49PRELIMINARY WETLAND BUFFER &TREE PRESERVATION PLAN - NORTHNFeet0100200I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ COUNTY ROAD N CHAPARRAL LAN E COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 RUSH CRE E K 34562101BLOCK 1DITCH 2-18-22KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com59PRELIMINARY WETLAND BUFFER &TREE PRESERVATION PLAN - SOUTHNFeet0100200I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ CHAPARRAL LANESTA 0+00 TO STA 11+004 5 6 7 8 9 CHAPARRAL LANECOUNTY ROAD 10 2-18-22PRELIMINARY STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCHAPARRAL LANE STA 0+00 TO STA 11+00KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com69N Feet050100I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ CHAPARRAL LANESTA 11+00 TO STA 19+563 45 2 1CHAPARRAL LANE2-18-22PRELIMINARY STREET & STORM SEWER PLANCHAPARRAL LANE STA 11+00 TO STA 19+56KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com79N Feet050100I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 45678109BLOCK 1COUNTY ROAD NO. 10COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 CHAPARRAL LANE CRE E K R U S H CREEK 2-18-22PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSIONCONTROL PLAN - NORTHKARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN89SILT FENCE DETAILFeet0100200I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 34562101BLOCK 1COUNTY RO CHAPARRAL LAN E RUSH CRE E K COUNTY ROAD NO. 19 DITCH 2-18-22KARINIEMI MEADOWSNathan KariniemiCorcoran, MN21-0188SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN99PRELIMINARY GRADING &EROSION CONTROL PLAN - SOUTHSILT FENCE DETAILFeet0100200I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________ 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 7i. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: John M Burbank through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 16, 2022 for the May 26, 2022 City Council Meeting RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Corcoran Farms Business Park (City file no. 22-006) REVIEW DEADLINE: N/A 1.Description of Request JMMK, LLC has submitted a request to initiate a mandatory EAW for the Corcoran Farms Business Park to construct a 70 business park consisting of five buildings with a combined area of 726,000 square feet. Project components include construction of warehouse/office buildings, parking areas, access roads, trail facility, sewer/water utility improvements, and stormwater ponds. The project area is currently utilized for agricultural production. The Minnesota Environmental Review Program rules require a mandatory EAW for new warehousing or light industrial facilities greater than 300,000 gross square feet in Corcoran. The Council authorized the preparation of the EAW at the February 24, 2022 regular meeting when the concept plan was reviewed. 2.Background Under Minnesota Environmental Review Program rules, the City is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) tasked with preparing the EAW and determining whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The purpose of the environmental review process is to provide useable information to the project proposer, government decision-makers and the public concerning the primary environmental effects of a proposed project. The EAW should identify measures to protect the environment that can later be imposed as conditions of approval in future development applications. If the EAW identifies significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated or minimized, the City Council would order the preparation of an EIS. An EIS does not necessarily disclose more information about potential impacts; but rather, its main purpose is to examine project alternatives and additional mitigative measures to lessen significant impacts identified in the EAW. Furthermore, an EIS is not a means to approve or deny a project but is an additional source of information to guide decisions. Very few projects move to the EIS stage because, in most cases, the EAW does an adequate job of describing the potential impacts and identifying mitigative measures. The statutory standard for requiring and EIS is whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects – it is not whether the EAW has adequately disclosed information about potential impacts. Accordingly, if Council determines that the EAW does not disclose sufficient information about 2 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW (city file 22-006) May 26, 2022 potential impacts, the Council could request additional information before making a decision on the need for an EIS. 3.Analysis The item for Council to consider is approving the draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for distribution for the Corcoran Farms Business Park. This draft EAW document is required under the Minnesota Environmental Review rules for industrial, commercial and institutional developments. When the Council approves the EAW for distribution, the 30-day period for comments begins. Staff will finalize the draft EAW document and distribute for review and comment. Key dates under the tentative schedule developed by staff are: Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Schedule Key Dates RGU approves for distribution 05/26/2022 Draft document distributed for comments 05/31/2022 Deadline for submission to EQB 05/31/2022 EQB Publication date 06/07/2022 30 day Comment Deadline 07/07/2022 Notice of Decision - Council 07/28/2022 No project approvals can be granted until the EAW process is completed. 4. Action Move to approve Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW for distribution and comment and publication in the EQB. Following the EAW comment period, it will be brought to the City Council for action on the EAW. . Attachments 1.Draft Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW dated May 11, 2022 1 Corcoran Farms Business Park Draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet Proposer: JMMK, LLC RGU: City of Corcoran May 11, 2022 2 Table of Contents 1.Project Title .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Proposer .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.Responsible Governmental Unit ..................................................................................................................................... 4 4.Reason for EAW Preparation ......................................................................................................................................... 4 5.Project Location .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 6.Project Description ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 7.Cover Types .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 8.Permits and Approvals .................................................................................................................................................... 7 9.Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 10.Geology, Soils and Topography/Land Forms ................................................................................................................. 9 11.Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 12.Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................................................ 19 13.Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ........................................... 22 14.Historic Properties ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 15.Visual ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26 16.Air ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 17.Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 18. Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................... 28 19. Cumulative Potential Effects ........................................................................................................................................ 32 20.Other Potential Environmental Effects ......................................................................................................................... 34 Tables Table 1. Project Magnitude .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Cover Types within the Project Area ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 3. Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. NRCS Soil Types within the Project Area ................................................................................................................... 11 Table 5. DNR Public Waters within One Mile of the Project Area ........................................................................................... 12 Table 6. Wetlands within the Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 13 Table 7. MWI Wells within 500 feet of the Project Area .......................................................................................................... 15 Table 8. Potential Wetland Impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 9. MPCA Potentially Contaminated Sites within 500 Feet of the Project Area ............................................................... 20 Table 10. Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project ........................................................................................................ 29 Table 11. Year 2027 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis ............................................................................. 30 Table 12. Year 2040 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis ............................................................................. 30 Table 13. CR 116/Larkin Road Intersection Operations Analysis with Traffic Signal Control................................................. 31 Table 14. Recommended Traffic Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................. 31 3 •Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map •Figure 2: Hennepin County Location Map •Figure 3: Site Plan •Figure 4: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map •Figure 5: Farmland and Soil Classifications •Figure 6: Water Resources •Figure 7: Potential Wetland Impacts •Figure 8: County Well Index •Figure 9: MPCA Potentially Contaminated Sites Appendix B: Wetland Delineation and WCA Notice of Decision Appendix C: FEMA FIRMette Appendix D: MDH Well Log Reports Appendix E: Feasibility Study Report Appendix F: DNR NHIS Concurrence and USFWS IPaC Query Appendix G: Traffic Impact Study Appendix H: SHPO Response Letter Appendices Appendix A: Figures 4 July 2013 version ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 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 addresses 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 Corcoran Farms Business Park 2.Proposer JMMK, LLC Contact person: Jeff Minea Title: Applicant Address: 18805 37th Ave. N. City, State, ZIP: Plymouth, MN 55446 Phone: 612-701-7741 Email: jiminea@lee-associates.com 3.Responsible Governmental Unit City of Corcoran Contact person: Kendra Lindahl Title: Planner Address:8200 County Road 116 City, State, ZIP: Corcoran, MN 55357 Email: klindahl@landform.net 4. Reason for EAW Preparation Required: Discretionary: EIS Scoping Citizen petition X Mandatory EAW RGU discretion Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): A mandatory EAW is required in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.4300, Subpart 14 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Facilities 5 5. Project Location County: Hennepin City/Township: Corcoran PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NW 1/4 and the SW 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of Section 26 T 119 R 23W (Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1657 on Certificate of Title No. 1444050) Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Elm Creek GPS Coordinates: 45.09053, -93.55222 Tax Parcel Number: 26-119-23-13-0006 At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: •County map showing the general location of the project; See Figure 1 and Figure 2, Appendix A •U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and See Figure 1, Appendix A •Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post- construction site plan. See Figure 3, Appendix A 6.Project Description a.Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). The Project proposes to construct a 70-acre business park consisting of five buildings with a combined area of 726,394 square feet. Project components include construction of warehouse/office buildings, parking areas, access roads, a public trail, sewer/water utility improvements and stormwater ponds. The Project Area is currently utilized for agricultural production. 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. 1)Construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. The Project proposes to construct a business park consisting of five buildings of varying size totaling 726,394 square feet. The Project Area includes an approximately 70-acre in the City of Corcoran in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Project Area is currently utilized for agricultural production. The Project Area is bordered by Larkin Road along the South and CSAH 50 (Rebecca Park Trail) to the north. Agricultural land is present to the west and industrial/commercial development is present to the 6 east of the Project Area. The Project Area contains seven wetland basins that were delineated in 2021. The wetlands are mostly along the outer edges of the field with two smaller basins toward the center. A DNR protected creek flows allows along the eastern edge of the site. A 50-foot gas line easement crosses the site east/west along the southern portion of the property. A city park is located north of the site across CSAH 50. Figure 1 (USGS Topographic Map) and Figure 2 (Hennepin County Location Map) in Appendix A illustrate the project location. The Project will require the construction of a north/south public street to serve the industrial buildings with associated parking lots. City sewer and water will be brought through the center of the site from the north to the south with a public trail constructed along the eastern edge. The City completed a feasibility study to analyze the infrastructure needs for the site and surrounding area. The Project is proposed to be developed in phases starting from the southern end. As the street and utilities will need to be constructed through the entire site for development to occur, extensive grading is expected to occur across the Project Area as part of the initial phase. The grading will be needed to construct the proposed access road, utilities, trail, stormwater ponds and various retaining walls, specifically along the gas easement. Impacts to wetlands are anticipated in the central portion of the Project Area and along the north end to allow for road access. Minimal impacts to County Ditch 16 will occur to extend the sewer and water utilities currently located on the east side of County Ditch 16 to the Project Area. Minor tree removals will be required near the existing farm buildings and structures. Figure 3, Appendix A provides the proposed site plan. 2)Modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes. No existing equipment or industrial processes are proposed to be modified as part of the Project. 3)Significant demolition, removal, or remodeling of existing structures. Three pole-style farm structures along the eastern edge of the site that will be demolished as part of the Project. 4) Timing and duration of construction activities Site preparation with initial grading may occur Fall of 2022 with most of the first phase construction occurring in the Spring of 2023. The duration of the construction is dependent on the size and location of the first buildings. c.Project magnitude Table 1 summarizes the project magnitude. Table 1. Project Magnitude Description Number Total project acreage 70.4 Linear project length (feet) 8,355 Number and type of residential units Not applicable (N/A) Residential building area (in square feet) N/A Commercial building area (in square feet) N/A 7 Industrial building area (in square feet) Institutional building area (in square feet) N/A Other uses – specify (in square feet) N/A Structure height(s) (feet) 34 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 project is to allow for development of additional industrial businesses in the City of Corcoran. e.Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? Yes X No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. f.Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes X No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. 7. Cover Types Table 2 summarizes the cover types within the Project Area for the existing and proposed conditions. Table 2. Cover Types within the Project Area Cover Types Before (approx.) After (approx.) Wetlands (acres) 6.1 5.9 Deep Water/Streams (linear ft.) 662.5 662.5 Wooded/Forest (acres) 0.75 0 Brush/Grassland (acres) 22.5 10 Cropland (acres) 40 0 Lawn/Landscaping (acres) 0 12.4 Impervious Surface (acres) 1.0 39.0 Stormwater Pond (acres) 0 3.0 Other (describe) N/A N/A TOTAL 70.3 70.3 8.Permits and Approvals 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. 726,394 8 Table 3 identifies permits and approvals anticipated to be required for the proposed Project. Table 3. Permits and Approvals Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be completed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 ESA Consultation To be completed, if required State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Section 401 Certification To be completed MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit To be completed Local Hennepin County Driveway Access Permit To be completed, if required Hennepin County Right-of-way Excavation Permit To be completed, if required City of Corcoran EAW / EIS Need Decision Draft prepared City of Corcoran Wetland Conservation Act (Boundary Approval/Replacement Plan) To be completed City of Corcoran Preliminary and Final Plat To be completed City of Corcoran Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be completed City of Corcoran Building Permits To be completed Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission Stormwater, Erosion Control, and Site Plan Approval To be completed 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. There is an existing single-family residence on the property and several associated farmstead agricultural buildings. Most of the existing land use of the site is agricultural. On the uncultivated 9 areas, there are scattered clumps of trees and vegetation, natural grasslands and mowed turf areas. Seven wetlands, a drainage ditch and an unnamed perennial stream were identified on the property. The surrounding properties have a variety of existing land uses. The existing and planned land use for the adjacent property to the east is Light Industrial. The properties to the west are rural residential homesteads, Cropland, woods, wetlands, and undeveloped natural open space. See Appendix A Figure 4 for details. 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 property is currently guided and zoned Light Industrial (I-1) and the eastern portion of the property is in the Shoreland Overlay district. The zoning ordinance permits warehouse and office uses in the overlying I-1 (Light Industrial zoning district), but the applicant will be requesting a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for reduced setbacks. iii.Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The property is bisected on the eastern quarter by the established shoreland district in Corcoran. This impact is identified on Figure 9. b.Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The proposed site design for the property includes planned infrastructure improvements related to streets, utilities, surface water management and treatment. Erosion control measures will be required and utilized per state requirements during construction, and the zoning ordinance addresses noise, smoke odor and other potential negative impacts on surrounding areas that could be encountered with an industrial use of the site. Landscaping installations required with the project development will have known and proven benefits for birds, wildlife, shade cooling, air quality and carbon reduction. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. The project will help the City meet the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goal to “Attract and encourage new light industrial, office-industrial, high tech and professional services, and maintain and expand existing businesses in Corcoran. The required setbacks and landscaping for the project is a standard first step in buffering a new use from existing surrounding land uses, the other referenced zoning ordinance protections will be reviewed by the City as part of a formal development application. 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. 10 The surficial and bedrock geology for Hennepin County has been mapped in the Minnesota Geological Survey’s Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County 1. Surficial deposits in the central and northern portion of the Project Area are comprised of loam to clay loam diamict with scattered pebbles, cobbles, and rare boulders. On average, the composition of this very coarse-grained sand fraction is 41 percent shale. The southern portion of the Project Area contains a slightly different surficial deposit makeup. This area is comprised of silt loam, sandy loam, and loamy sand gravel mix with fine grained sand and silt. The bedrock geology of the northern portion of the Project Area consists of St. Lawrence Formation, which is dolomitic, feldspathic siltstone with interbedded, very fine-grained sandstone and shale. The southern portion of the Project Area consists of Jordan Sandstone, a medium- to coarse-grained, friable quartzose sandstone. The Northwest corner of the Project Area contains a small inclusion of the Mazomanie Formation, a fine- to medium-grained, cross-stratified, generally friable, quartzose sandstone. The estimated depth from the land surface to the bedrock surface is approximately 101 to 200 in the north portion of the Project Area and approximately 101 to 150 in the southern portion of the Project Area. According to the surrounding water well logs on the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Minnesota Source Water Protection Map 2, no wellhead protection areas or drinking water supply management areas are within the Project Area. The Maple Hill Estates Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) and Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) are located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project Area and would not be affected by the Project. The drinking water supply management area vulnerability ranking is classified as low. No known karst or sinkhole features are present within the Project Area. 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. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the Project Area is comprised of eight soil types. Soil within the Project Area is associated mainly with moraines and hillslopes. The soil types include Lester loam (ground moraines and hillslopes; well drained), Cordova loam (drainageways on moraines, poorly drained), Glencoe clay loam (depressions, very poorly drained), Le Sueur loam (hillslopes and ground moraines; somewhat poorly drained), Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex (ground moraines, somewhat poorly drained), Angus loam (hillslopes and ground moraines; well drained), and Hamel-Glencoe complex (ground moraines, poorly drained). Figure 5, Appendix A identifies soils classifications within and in the vicinity of the Project Area. Table 4 lists hydrologic soil groups. The four hydrologic soil groups are: •Group C: Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. 1 Steenberg, Julia R.; Bauer, Emily J; Chandler, V.W.; Retzler, Andrew J; Berthold, Angela J; Lively, Richard S. (2018). C- 45, Geologic Atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/200919. 2 MDH. Source Water Protection Map. Available at https://mdh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8b0db73d3c95452fb45231900e977be4. Accessed April, 2022. 11 •Group D: Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay later at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D and assigned to dual classes. Table 4. NRCS Soil Types within the Project Area Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Percent Slopes Hydrologic Soil Group Acres Approx. Pct. of Project Area L22C2 Lester loam 6-10 C 14.9 21.6 L22E Lester loam 10-22 C 1.3 1.9 L23A Cordova loam 0-2 C/D 12.3 17.9 L24A Glencoe clay loam 0-1 C/D 4.6 6.7 L25A Le Sueur loam 1-3 C/D 13.7 20.0 L36A Hamel, overwash- Hamel complex 0-3 C/D 15.0 21.8 L37B Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 2-6 C 3.3 4.8 L132A Hamel-Glencoe complex 0-2 C/D 3.6 5.2 Topography within the Project Area is generally flat with no slopes greater than 22 percent identified. Overall, the soil has a slower infiltration rate, which can result in higher runoff potential. Areas that have steeper slopes, measures will be considered during construction to help prevent erosion. Measures will include, erosion control blankets, along with native vegetation establishment to permanently stabilize side slopes and any areas impacted as a result of construction. 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 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 12 List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Surface Waters A review of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) geospatial data determined that no lakes, trout streams or trout lakes 3, wildlife lakes 4, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes 5, or outstanding resource value waters 6 are present within the Project Area. One county ditch (County Ditch 16, M-062-004-002-002) is located within and along the eastern edge of the Project Area. Thirteen unnamed surface water features and one named surface water feature (Rush Creek, South Fork) are present within a one-mile radius of the Project Area. Figure 6, Appendix A identifies surface waters in the vicinity of the Project Area. DNR Public Waters Two DNR Public Waters and Watercourses are partially located within the Project Area (Figure 6, Appendix A). Table 5 lists DNR Public Waters and Public Watercourses within the Project Area and within a one-mile radius of the Project Area. Table 5. DNR Public Waters within One Mile of the Project Area Name Public Water ID Type Public Waters Within the Project Area Unnamed 27043000 Public Water Wetland Unnamed (County Ditch 16) M-062-004-002-002 Public Watercourse Public Waters Within a One Mile Radius of the Project Area Unnamed 27042400 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27042600 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27042700 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27042800 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27042900 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27043100 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27043200 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27043700 Public Water Wetland Unnamed 27043800 Public Water Wetland Unnamed (East Portion) 27043901 Public Water Wetland Rush Creek, South Fork M-062-004-002 Public Watercourse Unnamed Stream M-062-012 Public Watercourse 3 DNR. 2020. State Designated Trout Streams, Minnesota. Available at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-trout-stream- designations. Accessed April 2022. 4 DNR. 2016. Designated Wildlife Lakes. Available at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-designated-wildlife-lakes. Accessed April 2022. 5 DNR. 2016. Migratory Waterfowl Feeding and Resting Areas. Available at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-migratory- waterfowl-areas. Accessed April 2022. 6 DNR. 2020. Lakes of Biological Significance. Available at: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-lakes-of-biological-signific. Accessed April 2022. 13 Wetland Resources Based on a review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data, time-lapsed aerial imagery, and a wetland delineation performed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on August 19, 2021, seven wetlands are present within the Project Area (Figure 6, Appendix A). Appendix B provides the wetland delineation report and Notice of Decision. Wetland 1/1a is located along the eastern boundary of the Project Area and consists of a shallow marsh that drains into an unnamed creek that flows into a system of culverts. Wetland 1/1a is classified as a partially drained shallow marsh/ wet meadow, palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1Cd/PEM1Bd). Wetland 2 is located along the northeast border of the Project Area and is identified by field verification as a wet meadow palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B). Wetland 3 is located in the north central and northwestern boundary of the Project Area and consists of a shallow open water basin and wet meadow. Wetland 3 is classified in the NWI database as a PUBFx and by field verification as a PEM1B/PUBGx wetland. Wetland 4 is located along the western edge of the Project Area and consists of a wet meadow wetland. Wetland 4 was not identified within the NWI but was determined as a PEM1A through field verification. Wetland 5 is located on the western edge of the Project Area and classified as a partially drained shallow marsh and wet meadow and is classified by the NWI as a PEM1A. Wetlands 6 and 7 are located in the south central and southeastern areas of the Project Area and are both classified as farmed seasonally flooded basins and where not mapped on the NWI. Field verification classified both of these wetlands as palustrine emergent (PEM1Af) wetlands. Table 6 summarizes wetlands delineated in the Project Area. Figure 6, Appendix A identifies wetlands and other aquatic resources within or in the vicinity of the Project Area. Appendix B includes the wetland delineation report and WCA Notice of Decision. Table 6. Wetlands within the Project Area Wetland ID Circular* 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed Dominant Vegetation Size (Acres Onsite) 1/1A Type 3/2 PEM1Cd Partially Drained Shallow Marsh / Wet Meadow Narrowleaf cattail, reed canary grass, stinging nettle and giant goldenrod. 0.63 2 Type 2 PEM1B Wet Meadow Reed canary grass, swamp milkweed, various sedges, and lesser timothy and red clover. 0.26 3 Type 2/5 PEM1B/ PUBGx Shallow Open Water / Wet Meadow Reed canary grass, swamp milkweed, various sedges, with lesser amounts of timothy and red clover. 0.39 4 Type 1 PEM1A Wet Meadow Reed canary grass, various sedges with lesser amounts of timothy and unknown fleabane. 0.27 5 Type 3/2 PEM1Cd/ PEM1Bd Partially Drained Shallow Marsh / Wet Meadow Narrowleaf cattail, reed canary grass, jewelweed, river bulrush, hedge bindweed, stinging nettle, swamp milkweed, and lake sedge. 4.39 14 Wetland ID Circular* 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed Dominant Vegetation Size (Acres Onsite) 6 Type 1 PEM1Af Farmed Seasonally Flooded Basin Stunted soybean crop with scattered yellow nut sedge. 0.35 7 Type 1 PEM1Af Farmed Seasonally Flooded Basin Reed canary grass, yellow foxtail, Pennsylvania smartweed, and lesser amounts of timothy. 0.14 *Type 1 wetland types include seasonally flooded basins or flats; Type 3 wetlands indicate inland shallow fresh marshes. MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List County Ditch 16, Assessment Unit Identification (AUID) 07010206-761, is designated as impaired based on the MPCA’s draft 2022 impaired waters list. The impaired stream runs along the eastern side of the Project boundary. (Figure 6, Appendix A). County Ditch 16 is impaired for aquatic life. Floodway/Floodplain A FIRMette was generated through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) mapping tool7, which indicates that the Project Area is located within Zone X, an area with minimal flood hazard. Appendix C includes the FEMA FIRMette for the Project Area. 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. 1.Depth to groundwater Based on a review of domestic water wells located near the Project Area, the depth to static water level ranges from 20 feet and 150 feet with an average depth to static water levels of 62 feet. 2.MDH Wellhead Protection Area The Project Area is not within a MDH Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) or Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)8. 3.Onsite and/or nearby wells A search of the MDH Minnesota Well Index (MWI) database indicates that there are zero wells present within the Project Area9. Twenty wells are present within a 500-foot radius of the 7 FMEA. 2020. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. Available at: FEMA Flood Map Service Center | Search By Address. Accessed April 2022. 8 MDH. Source Water Protection Web Map Viewer. Available at: https://mdh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8b0db73d3c95452fb45231900e977be4. Accessed April 2022. 9 MDH. Minnesota Well Index. Available at: https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/mwi/. Accessed April 2022. 15 Project area. Table 7 tabulates documented wells within 500 feet of the Project Area based on the MDH MWI database. Figure 8 in Appendix A identifies the locations of wells in the vicinity of the project. Appendix D provides the MDH well log records. Table 7. MWI Wells within 500 feet of the Project Area Well ID Use Type Status Elevation (msl ft.) Well Depth (ft.) Static Water Level (ft.) 104845 Domestic Active 963 203 55 118887 Domestic Active 961 197 60 148105 Domestic Active 956 323 150 168654 Domestic Active 965 75 20 192837 Domestic Active 994 231 80 259743 Public Active 951 N/A N/A 421780 Domestic Active 972 315 55 470764 Domestic Active 957 254 53 479959 Domestic Active 973 252 65 511975 Domestic Active 958 230 55 551597 Industrial Active 970 240 65 563093 Industrial Active 978 253 68 592153 Domestic Active 976 83 55 594127 Domestic Sealed 981 195 65 597473 Domestic Active 974 251 70 607761 Domestic Active 965 178 65 638346 Domestic Active 974 167 64 728690 Domestic Active 979 187 65 728994 Domestic Active 980 250 60 755332 Industrial Active 975 252 65 b.Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. 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. On behalf of the City of Corcoran, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) completed a feasibility study to evaluate infrastructure improvement recommendations. Sewer service for 16 the proposed development will be via a tie-in to the existing 18-inch trunk sewer located near the northeast corner of the parcel. In accordance with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Proposer will be required to construct an 18-inch sewer southward through the development to the southern parcel line along Larkin Road. Appendix E includes the feasibility study report. In addition to the primary 18-inch trunk sewer, two sewer stubs must also be constructed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. A 12-inch trunk sewer stub to the west parcel line must be constructed at approximately the same installation depth as the 18-inch sewer (i.e., as deep as possible, allowing for proper tie-in at the tee manhole). An 8-inch sewer lateral to the southeast corner of the parcel must also be constructed to serve the parcels located further east. In order to avoid overloading the City’s existing and planned wastewater infrastructure, the Proposer will be required to limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day). This is the volume of wastewater that has been planned for in the Comprehensive Plan. This is particularly important given that the Rush Creek Reserve development (located north of this Project and downstream in the local sewershed) is in the process of building a new wastewater lift station to replace the previously used lift station on County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 10. The new lift station is adequately sized to accommodate planned wastewater flows from this and other developments, but any unplanned increase could potentially exceed this lift station’s design capacity. Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. Where both sewer and potable water utilities are being installed in parallel, the easements must be wide enough to accommodate the required separation distance between sewer and potable water lines. 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. The Project does not propose to discharge to a SSTS. 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. The Project would not result in wastewater discharges to surface waters. 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. Pre-Construction Stormwater Runoff Under existing conditions, the Project Area primarily consists of agricultural land, wetlands, and rural residential property. Surface water runoff drains towards existing wetlands areas and roadway ditches. No existing stormwater features are present within the existing Project Area. Pollutants 17 typically associated with agricultural areas include pesticides, sediment, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) from fertilizers, and metals. Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Although elimination of agriculture can benefit water quality by reducing export of nutrients and sediments through onsite ponding and filtration (Best Management Practices or BMPs), construction of additional impervious surfaces, such as the roads, driveways, rooftops, and sidewalks increase the volume to nearby surface waters. The increased impervious surface areas will result in higher runoff rates, volumes, and pollutants compared to the existing conditions. Stormwater best management practices (BMPs) will be constructed to mitigate stormwater runoff rate, volumes, and pollutant loading. It is anticipated that the project will include wet sedimentation ponds with filtration benches to provide stormwater treatment. Onsite stormwater flow will be directed into these BMP’s and away from the impaired waterway on the eastern border of the Project Area identified as County Ditch (07010206-761). Figure 3, Appendix A identifies the preliminary locations for the proposed stormwater BMPs. The proposed drainage design will be confirmed as the project design is developed and will comply with all applicable local and state regulatory requirements. The MPCA will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater permit to be obtained for the project and all design since more than one acre of land will be disturbed by the proposed project. Project construction will adhere to NPDES permitting requirements. The Project will also adhere to the City of Corcoran and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) stormwater requirements. A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required in accordance with MPCA and City of Corcoran stormwater requirements. A SWPPP be prepared during final project design and submitted for approval prior to construction of the project. Erosion control will utilize temporary sediment basins with ditches and check dams (sized per permit guidance), temporary ground cover where construction has paused, and perimeter control to avoid erosion and sedimentation throughout the site. Stockpiles will be stabilized when not in use and have the stockpile perimeter controlled. All permanent slopes 4:1 or steeper will have erosion control blankets installed. Section 23 of the General Stormwater Permit identifies additional controls and conditions required for construction sites within one mile of an impaired water. The Project will be required to utilize additional best management practices (BMPs) during construction as specified in the Construction Stormwater permit due to the proximity of the Project Area to County Ditch 16, a designated impaired water. These BMPs include stabilizing soils within seven days after the construction activity in that portion of the site temporarily pr permanently ceases and providing a temporary sediment basin where five or more acres drain to a common location. In addition, if the Project will disturb 50 or more acres, the SWPPP must be submitted to the MPCA 30 days prior to obtaining the Construction Stormwater permit. 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. 18 The water supply for the Project will be consistent with the water supply planned for all of Southeast Corcoran. Under a contract to provide water service, the City of Maple Grove will continue to supply Southeast Corcoran with up to a peak of five million gallons per day (MGD). The infrastructure feasibility study completed by Stantec identified multiple service operation for varying watermain layouts and sizes within and outside of the Project Area. A 12-inch watermain within the Project Area is required, running north to south through the Project Area to the connection to the 12-inch trunk main near CSAH 50 and the connection (or stub) to the planned 16- inch trunk main at the intersection of Larkin Road and Blue Bonnet Drive. Construction of the 12- inch trunk watermain along the north side of Shamrock Golf Course along Larkin Road is critical to ensure target fire flows of 3,000 gpm can be provided to downtown areas including the proposed Corcoran Farms Business Park. Appendix E provides the feasibility study report which includes a detailed summary of the watermain improvements recommended as part of this Project. iv. Surface Waters b)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. Seven wetlands are located within the Project Area covering a combined 5.9 acres. Complete avoidance of these wetland will not be feasible with the proposed project. For the purposes of this EAW, potential wetland impacts were estimated based on a 25-foot buffer from proposed improvements including buildings, access roads, and parking areas. Based on the preliminary conceptual design, it is anticipated that the Project will avoid impacts to Wetland 2 and Wetland 3. The Project is anticipated to encroach into portions of Wetland 1/1A, Wetland 3, Wetland 6, and Wetland 7. Impacts to Wetland 5 would occur as a result of a future public road extension project and would not result for this Project. Minimization of impacts to wetlands will be evaluated as the project design advances. Figure 7, Appendix A illustrates the potential impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. Table 8 identifies the potential wetland impacts resulting from the proposed project. Table 8. Potential Wetland Impacts Wetland ID Circular 39 Cowardin Size (Acres onsite) Potential Impact (acres) Wetland 1/1A Type 3/2 PEM1Cd/PEM1Bd 0.63 0.021 Wetland 3 Type 2/5 PEM1B/PUBGx 0.39 0.071 Wetland 5 Type 3/2 PEM1Cd/PEM1Bd 4.39 0.11* Wetland 6 Type 1 PEM1Af 0.35 0.35 Wetland 7 Type 1 PEM1Af 0.14 0.14 Total 5.9 0.7* 19 *Potential impacts anticipated as part of a future public road extension project. Impacts to wetlands are regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The City of Corcoran is the WCA local governmental unit (LGU). It is anticipated that impacts to regulated wetlands will be mitigated through wetland banking credits within the same Wetland Bank Service Area. The Project Area is located in Wetland Bank Service Area 7. Current regulations require wetland impacts within this area of the state are replace at a minimum ratio of 2:1. Mitigation for unavoidable permanent wetland impacts will be provided in accordance with all regulations and requirements in place at the time of final design and permitting. Wetlands that are avoided will be required to comply with the City of Corcoran’s Municipal Code 10 wetland buffer requirements outlined in 1050 Subpart 5 section C. One surface water identified as a (27043000) DNR Public Water Wetland located on the central western border of the Project Area may be impacted by a future public road extension. The Project will not impact this DNR Public Water Wetland. The Project has been designed to not accommodate the future public road extension. Coordination with the DNR would need to be completed and a DNR Public Waters Work Permit would be required at the time that the future public road extension is proposed. c)Other surface waters - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. The Project would not directly impact or alter surface water features. No surface waters will be directly impacted by the Project. County Ditch 16 extends along the eastern boundary of the Project Area. As discussed in Item 11.b.ii of this EAW, additional BMP requirements will be required given the proximity of the Project to County Ditch 16, a designated impaired water. 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 review of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s in My Neighborhood (WIMN) 10 City of Corcoran. 2019. City of Corcoran Municipal Code. Available at: https://corcoranmn.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=15543764&pageId=15584702.Accessed April 2022. 20 database11 was conducted to identify documented potentially contaminated sites within or in the vicinity of the Project Area. No WIMN records are located within the Project Area. Table 9 summarizes MPCA potentially contaminated sites within 500 feet of the Project Area. Figure 9, Appendix A illustrates the location of potentially contaminated sites within and in close proximity to the Project. Table 9. MPCA Potentially Contaminated Sites within 500 Feet of the Project Area Site Name Site ID MPCA Program Status Approx. Distance from Project Area (ft.) Direction in Relation to Project Area Pauls Corcoran Service 189764 Petroleum remediation/leak site (LS0002461) Inactive (leak reported 1990 – site closed 2001) 140 North Pro Drywall and Painting Inc. 232524 Hazardous waste; one time generator (MNS000333008) Active (registered 2019, 2020, 2021) 180 East Countryside Service 149808 Hazardous waste; very small quantity generator (MNS000223917) Active (registered 2015) 280 North Miller Brothers 99843 Aboveground tank (TS0124251) Active (registered 2006) 288 East Gazelle Marketing 126692 Construction stormwater (C00024481) Active (coverage issuance 2007- 2022) 330 East An additional review of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) WIMN database 12 was conducted to identify documented potentially contaminated sites within or in the vicinity of the Project Area. No records were identified with the Project Area or within a 500-foot buffer. The MPCA and MDA reviews did not identify any known potentially contaminated sites or hazardous materials within or within the vicinity of the Project Area that would be exposed or exacerbated by the construction of the proposed Project. In the event that potentially contaminated soils or other potentially hazardous materials are encountered during construction, plans will be developed to properly handle and treat contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Any contaminated soils or other potentially hazardous materials encountered during construction will be handled and disposed of in accordance with MPCA and any other applicable requirements. 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 Waste 11 MPCA. Undated. What’s in My Neighborhood. Available at: What's in My Neighborhood | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (state.mn.us). Accessed. April 2022. 12 MDA. 2022. What’s in My Neighborhood? - Agricultural. Available at: https://app.gisdata.mn.gov/mda-agchem/. Accessed. April 2022. 21 Construction wastes will be typical of office/light industrial developments. Construction wastes will be primarily non-hazardous and would be managed as municipal solid waste (MSW) or construction/ demolition debris. Hazardous wastes in the form of used oils/lubricants, waste paints, or other materials may be generated during construction. The contractor will be required to manage and dispose of all construction-generated waste in accordance with MPCA requirements and all other applicable regulatory requirements. Construction wastes will either be recycled or stored in approved containers and disposed of in the proper facilities. Any excess soil material that is not suitable for use onsite would become the property of the contractor and would be disposed of properly. All solid waste will be managed according to MPCA and other regulatory requirements. Construction will require demolition of three pole-style farm structures found within the eastern boundary of the Project Area. Solid wastes generated from the demolition of the existing structures would be disposed of as construction/demolition debris at a permitted landfill. Hazardous waste may be generated during Project construction from demolition of the existing farmstead and barn structures. If encountered, regulated materials such as asbestos, lights, and other regulated wastes will be abated and properly disposed of at a permitted facility. A pre-demolition hazardous materials survey will be completed prior to the start of demolition activities. If any regulated materials such as asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint and other regulated materials/wastes are present, an abatement plan will be prepared to address removal and proper disposal of regulated materials identified in the hazardous materials survey. If required, a comprehensive abatement closeout report would be prepared following abatement and demolition activities, which will document the removal, management, and disposal of any regulated materials. Operational Waste The project would generate solid waste during operation of the development, which is anticipated to include office and warehouse uses. Solid waste generated during operation of the development will be typical of waste generated by these office/light industrial uses and would be primarily managed as mixed municipal solid waste (MSW). The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) provides a list of estimated solid waste generate rates for office, industrial, service, and other establishments for general planning purposes 13. Based on estimated solid waste generate rates of 1.42 lbs. per 100 square feet per day for office/warehouse uses, it was estimated that the Project may produce approximately 1,340 tons of MSW per year. The collection of MSW would be managed by a waste hauler licensed by the City of Corcoran. The Project will adhere to all MPCA requirements and other regulations pertaining to the use, handling, and disposal of solid waste. Recycling areas will be provided in compliance with the Minnesota State Building code. 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 13 CalRecycle. 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed April 2022. 22 chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. The Project is not anticipated to include permanent chemicals/hazardous materials storage or use during its operation. No above – or below-ground storage tanks are planned for permanent use within the Project Area. If this changes, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plan will be prepared by a Minnesota Professional Engineer pursuant to federal regulations. Construction equipment may require the limited use of potentially hazardous materials, such as gasoline or diesel fuels, motor oils, hydraulic fluids, and other lubricants. Vehicles responsible for the transportation of hazardous materials will be equipped with spill kits for rapid response to any spills and refueling procedures will be implemented to eliminate leakage. Additionally, all fuels, oils, and lubricants will be stored in containment apparatuses while not in use or when being stored. Construction staff will be trained to spot and appropriately respond to potential spills. In the event that a leak or spill incident occurs, the contractor will be required to respond in accordance with MPCA containment and remedial action procedures. A Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures plan will be prepared by a Minnesota Professional Engineer pursuant to federal regulations. d.Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling. It is not anticipated that the Project would generate or require storage of hazardous wastes during its construction or operation. Item12.c describes the potential storage and use of hazardous materials during construction and operation of the Project. 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 in near the site. The vegetative land cover within the proposed Project Area primarily consists of active agricultural land including lowland grassland around the identified wetlands. Due to the dominance of agricultural land throughout the Project Area, there is limited habitat available for use by wildlife (woodlands, water resources, prairie, etc.). The Project Area borders the City of Corcoran to the east and north which includes residential and warehouse buildings. The identified wetlands within and surrounding the Project Area along with surrounding agricultural fields may provide limited habitat for migratory birds. Other common species that may be present within the Project Area are urban wildlife species, such as deer, coyotes, fox, mice, rabbits, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels, toads, salamanders, and turtles (DNR 2022)14. 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-1005) and/or correspondence number (ERDB N/A) 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. 14 DNR. 2022a. Minnesota Animals. Available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/animals/index.html. Accessed March 2022. 23 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Under Stantec’s Limited License to Use Copyrighted Material (LA-1005) related to Rare Features Data, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) was searched in March 2022 to identify species within the Project Area and a one-mile buffer. The NHIS search indicated one record within the proposed Project Area including the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator; state special concern species). No other records of listed species were identified within the Project Area or a one-mile buffer. A concurrence request was submitted to the DNR for review in April 2022. Appendix F provides the response received from the DNR generated through the DNR’s Minnesota Conservation Explorer system. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) During the breeding season, trumpeter swans use small ponds and lakes or bays on larger water bodies that have approximately 100 meters of open water for take-off and have extensive beds of emergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. They will commonly use muskrat houses, beaver lodges, exposed hummocks, small islands, and floating platforms to construct their nests. Adult trumpeter swans are primarily herbivorous but will occasionally feed on small crustaceans, fish, and fish eggs. Currently, the leading threat to their population is lead poisoning from lead shot and fishing sinkers. Other threats include degradation of wetland habitat, power line collisions, and illegal hunting. Although repopulation efforts have continued to be successful, the trumpeter swan was included on Minnesota’s List of Endangered and Threatened Species with the status of special concern due to continued threats to their population. (DNR 2022b)15. The Project Area consists of active agricultural land and does not contain suitable breeding or feeding habitats for the trumpeter swan such as small ponds and lakes. Based on a review of the NHIS data, occurrences of trumpeter swans were associated with an unnamed waterbody which is approximately 0.85 miles southeast of the Project Area. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the Project will have no impact on the trumpeter swam. Native Plant Communities and Sites of Biodiversity Significance Native plant communities, biodiversity sites, and Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEA) were reviewed within the Project Area and within a one-mile buffer using the Stantec’s NHIS license (LA- 1005). No native plant communities, biodiversity sites, or RSEAs were noted within the Project Area. However, one RSEA was noted within the one-mile buffer. A RSEA of outstanding significance was identified approximately 0.65 miles northeast of the Project Area. The site is located outside of the proposed Project Area and would not be impacted by the proposed Project. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 15 DNR 2022b. Rare Species Guide Trumpeter Swan. Available at: Cygnus buccinator : Trumpeter Swan | Rare Species Guide | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us). Accessed March 2022. 24 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool (USFWS 2022)16 was reviewed to identify federally listed species within the Project Area. Two species were identified that have the potential to occur within the Project Area: the northern long- eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; threatened) and the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus; candidate). Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Suitable roosting, forage, and travel habitat for northern long-eared bats (NLEB) in the summer consists of a wide variety of forested and wooded habitats. While roosting, NLEB is generally found in deep crevices in areas such as forests and woodlots (i.e., live trees and/or snags greater than or equal to three inches diameter at breast height that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. NLEB roosts in both live trees or snags (Sasse and Perkins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Owen et al. 2003)17,18,19. During winter months, NLEB hibernate in caves or abandoned mines (Foster and Kurta 1999). The NLEB is federally listed as threatened due to marked population declines caused by white-nose syndrome. Hennepin County is not listed as a county with documented white-nose syndrome according to the White- nose Syndrome Response Team individual spread maps (White-nose Syndrome Response Team 2021)20. Stantec also used its MDNR NHIS license agreement (LA-1005), and according to the NHIS database, no known roost trees or hibernaculum are in the Project Area or within the one-mile buffer. The MDNR maintains a list of townships containing documented NLEB maternity roost trees and/or hibernacula entrances. Based on a review of this list, the Project Area is not within 0.25 mile of a known, occupied hibernaculum, or within 150 feet of a known, occupied maternity roost trees (MDNR and USFWS 2021)21. The Project Area is primarily composed of agricultural land, and it does not contain potentially suitable summer roosting habitat (continuous forested areas) or potentially suitable overwintering habitat (caves or abandoned mines). Additionally, no known maternity roost trees or known hibernacula were identified in the NHIS review or in the MDNR and USFWS joint document. No tree clearing is anticipated to occur within the Project Area. As such, the Project will have no effect on the NLEB. Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) The monarch butterfly is a candidate for federal listing due to habitat loss, relating mainly to the loss of milkweeds and native prairies. This species exists in two main populations within the United States divided by the Rocky Mountains: the eastern population that overwinters in the mountains of Mexico, and the western population that overwinters along the southern pacific coast of California (United States 16 USFWS 2022. IPaC – Information, Planning, and Conservation System. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed March 2022. 17 Sasse, D.B., and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Bats and forests symposium. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Working Paper 23:91-101. 18 Foster, R. W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern bat. (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy 80:659–672. 19 Owen, et al. 2003. Homerange size and habitat use by northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 150: 352-359. 20 White-nose Syndrome Response Team 2021. 2006-2021 Spread Map. Available at: https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/. Accessed March 2022. 21 MDNR and USFWS 2021. Townships Containing Documented Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) Maternity Roost Trees and/or Hibernacula Entrances in Minnesota. Available at: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/minnesota_nleb_township_list_and_map.pdf. Accessed March 2022. 25 Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service undated)22. This species generally occurs in areas with high densities of nectar sources, preferably native prairies with nectar species such as black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), narrow-leaved coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia), and rough blazing star (Lastris aspera). Foraging species such as these are utilized by adults for feeding, but the presence of milkweed (genus Asclepias) is required for breeding habitat as it is the only plant on which the larvae can feed (MDNR 2022c and National Wildlife Federation undated)23,24. The Project Area consists primarily of agricultural land and does not contain suitable feeding habitat (native prairies) or breeding habitat (high density of milkweeds) to support the monarch butterfly. 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. The Project Area is not anticipated to have any impacts or adverse effects on the state-listed trumpeter swan as suitable habitat to support the breeding cycle of this species, such as small ponds or lakes, is not present within the Project Area. No native plant communities, biodiversity sites, or RSEAs were identified within the Project Area. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to have any impacts on these sites. The Project Area is not anticipated to have impacts or adverse effects on federally threatened and endangered species in the Project Area due to the lack of suitable habitat for the NLEB and monarch butterfly. Although the Project Area is unlikely to provide suitable summer habitat for the NLEB, under the Final 4(d) Rule of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), tree clearing, although not expected, is not prohibited as there are no records of NLEB maternity roost trees or a hibernaculum within the Project Area or a 0.25- mile buffer. Please note that this species may be up-listed from threatened to endangered by the USFWS within the next few months. Further consultation with the USFWS may be required but is not expected. The US Department of Agriculture’s National Invasive Species Information Center provides information regarding Best Management Practices (BMP) to prevent or mitigate invasive species establishment or movement. The Minnesota DNR also provides guidance on preventing the spread of aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. Guidance for implementation can be referenced at https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/resources-indexed?f%5b0%5d=field_location:108 Urban wildlife may be impacted with the removal of agricultural land. However, these habitat generalist species, such as deer, coyotes, fox, mice, rabbits, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels, toads, salamanders, and turtles are typically adaptive to development activities and would likely relocate to similar undeveloped areas in the vicinity or continue to live in the remaining undeveloped areas within the Project Area. d.Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, 22 United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service undated. Migration and Overwintering. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/Monarch_Butterfly/migration/. Accessed November 2021 23 MDNR 2022c. Butterfly Gardens. Available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gardens/butterfly/index.html. Accessed March 2022. 24 National Wildlife Federation undated. Monarch Butterfly. Available at: https://www.nwf.org/Educational- Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Invertebrates/Monarch-Butterfly. Accessed November 2021. 26 plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. Minimal tree removal will likely be required during construction of the Project. The extent of tree clearing will be determined as the final design develops and minimized to the extent possible. Removal of vegetation will avoid the NLEB pupping season from June 1 through August 15, when possible. Construction activities that involve soil disturbance can result in the introduction and spread of invasive species. Minnesota statutes (Chapter 18) and local ordinances regulate the management of noxious weeds and invasive species. Best management practices during construction activities and operation within the Project Area should be implemented to minimize the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species at the site. These practices include cleaning mud and debris off of construction equipment and clothing and staying on designated roads and trails. Sightings of any rare species during construction of activities will be reported to the MDNR Nongame Wildlife specialist and the City of Corcoran will follow the guidance that is received to avoid impacts. JMMK will manage the cutting and disturbance of native species during construction and when applicable, replant the native species that were removed or affected by construction activities. 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. Appendix H includes a letter from the Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office with their determination that no known historical structures, archeological sites or cultural properties are on or near the project site. 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. The Project Area currently consists primarily of agricultural land with wooded field edges that border sections of the Project Area. No designated scenic views or vistas are present in the vicinity of the Project. The landscape immediately surrounding the site consists of undeveloped agricultural land to the west, Larkin Road to the south, CSAH 50 to the north, industrial and commercial buildings to the east, and residential uses that border the north and south of the Project Area. The primarily visual impact will the transition of views from undeveloped and agricultural land to buildings, parking lots, and stormwater basins. The development is not expected to include industries that would emit vapor plumes. The Project Area is zoned by the City of Corcoran as light industrial. The Project will be required to adhere to the City of Corcoran’s ordinance requirements including building height and form, landscape screening, and lighting (City of Corcoran Municipal Code 2022)25. The existing tree lines and vegetation along sections of the Project Area will 25 City of Corcoran Municipal Code. Available at: TITLE I (civiclive.com). Accessed March 2022. 27 partially serve as a buffer for nearby residents. Tree removal and wetland impacts will be minimized to the extent possible primarily around the edges of the Project Area boundary. 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. The Project does not include heavy industrial uses that would have significant emissions. The Project includes light industrial uses consisting of office and warehouse buildings. These facilities may utilize natural gas and electric-powered equipment, which would emit low levels of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) as well as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and criteria pollutants, such as Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM). An inventory of potential electric and natural gas equipment to be installed at these facilities is not known at this time as prospective tenants have not been finalized. Generally, air emissions associated by these types of office and light industrial uses are relatively low and the facilities would not require an air permit. However, future tenants would be responsible for determining air permit applicability or exemption determinations based on the equipment to be installed with the facility prior to starting construction. 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. The Project Area is located in a CO maintenance area. The Project is expected to generate increased vehicular traffic, which will result in a relatively small increase in CO emissions and other vehicle related emissions. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) developed a CO hot spot screening method designed to identify intersections that may result in CO emissions that exceed air quality standards. MnDOT’s screening method assumes that intersections with a total daily traffic volume exceeding 82,300 vehicles per day may result in potential CO impacts that exceed air quality standards. A traffic impact study was completed for the Project, which is discussed in Item 18 of this EAW. Based on this study, intersections within the study area would not generate traffic exceeding 82,300 vehicles per day. Therefore, it is not anticipated that vehicle emissions generated by the project would have the potential to significantly impact CO air pollution. 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. The Project is not anticipated to produce dust or odors during its operation, but it may generate temporary dust and odors during construction. Sensitive receptors to these dusts and odors would include residents to the north and west of the Project Area. Potential odors would likely be associated with exhaust from diesel engines and fuel storage. Dust generated during construction will be minimized through standard 28 dust control measures such as applying water to exposed soils and limiting the duration of exposed soils to the extent possible. Dust levels after construction is complete would be minimal as all surfaces will be paved or revegetated. With these mitigations in place, the quality of life for nearby residences is not anticipated to be affected. 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. 1)Existing noise levels/sources in the area Existing noise sources include vehicle traffic along CSAH 50, County Road (CR) 116, and CSAH 10 to the north and east of the Project Area. Other existing noise sources include commercial and industrial uses east of the Project Area. 2)Nearby sensitive receptors The noise receptors nearest to the Project Area include rural residential areas located to the west and south of the Project Area. The closest rural residential properties are approximately 100 to 200 feet from the Project Area. Rush Creek Reserve, a residential development, is currently under construction along CSAH 10, north of the Project Area. Additionally, Corcoran City Park is located on the north side of CSAH 50, across from the Project Area. 3)Conformance to state noise standards The Project will minimize noise disturbances caused by the construction of the Project to the extent possible and will adhere to the noise regulations outlined in Minnesota State Statute 7030.0030 and Corcoran City Ordinances 1060.090 and 82.03 subpart 5 (MPCA 2015 and City of Corcoran Municipal Code 2022)16,26 The regulations state that construction activities are prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends. (MPCA 2015)6. 4)Quality of life The Project consists of office and warehouse uses that would not emit noise levels exceeding state noise standards. Construction of the Project will temporarily result in elevated noise levels. Construction noise would be temporary and will adhere to local ordinance requirements. No construction or operation hours would occur during nighttime hours. Construction equipment will be properly muffled and maintained in working order. This Project is not anticipated to affect the quality of life for nearby residents. The Project will be required to adhere to State and city noise regulations. 18. Transportation 26 MPCA 2015. Noise rules in Minnesota. Available at: A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota (state.mn.us). Accessed March 2022. 29 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. 1) Existing and proposed parking spaces The existing Project Area consists of an agricultural area with a few farm buildings and structures. No existing parking areas are present within the Project Area. The Project would provide approximately 1,077 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed development. 2)Estimated total average daily traffic generated It is anticipated that the Project will generate 2,072 trips per day. Table 10 summarizes daily and peak hour traffic under build conditions. Table 10. Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size (sq. ft.) Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Weekday Daily Total Trips Office 145,278 221 209 1,575 Warehouse 581,118 99 105 497 Total 320 314 2,072 3)Maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence The maximum peak hour traffic generated is 320 trips during a.m. peak hour (7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.). Table 10, above, summarizes peak hour traffic generation estimates resulting from the Project. 4)Source of trip generation rates Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 5)Availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes No transit routes or pedestrian facilities are present in the Project Area. b.Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. A traffic impact study was completed to evaluate opening year (year 2027) and future (year 2040) traffic volumes and determine the effects of the proposed project on traffic congestion in the area. The traffic impact study includes relevant figures including existing traffic volumes, future peak traffic volumes, 726,394 30 proposed development layout, and access locations. Appendix G includes the complete Traffic Impact Study. A summary of the results of the traffic impact study is provided in the following paragraphs. The traffic impact study was completed using Synchro software for the following intersections: •CSAH 10/CR 116 •CSAH 10/CSAH 50 •CR 116/Larkin Road •Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive Traffic capacity results are present in terms of level of service (LOS) which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. LOS results are based on the average delay per vehicle. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F denotes an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Typically, intersection LOS A through D is considered to be acceptable traffic flow conditions. Table 11 and Table 12 summarize the results of the intersection operations analysis for the year 2027 and 2040 conditions, respectively. Appendix G includes the traffic impact study which provides additional details. Table 11. Year 2027 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis Intersection Traffic Control 2027 No Build LOS 2027 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C A/D A/D Larkin Road/ Blue Bonnet Drive NB stop A/A A/A A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak Hours under Year 2027 No Build and Build conditions. Table 12. Year 2040 No Build and Build Intersection Operations Analysis Intersection Traffic Control 2040 No Build LOS 2040 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/C A/C B/F C/F Larkin Road/ Blue Bonnet Drive NB stop A/A A/A A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. 31 Under future year 2040 Build conditions, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours during year 2040 No Build and Build conditions. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. CR 116/ Larkin Road Intersection The eastbound movements at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection operates at a LOS F during the 2040 Build conditions. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this intersection. The traffic volume forecasts were used to determine if specific warrants are satisfied based on published criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. Table 13 summarizes the results of this analysis. Table 13. CR 116/Larkin Road Intersection Operations Analysis with Traffic Signal Control 2027 Build LOS 2040 Build LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour B/B B/B B/C B/C Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. Recommended Traffic Mitigation Measures Table 14 summarizes recommended measures to mitigate potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed development. Table 14. Recommended Traffic Mitigation Measures Intersection Short-Term Measures Long-Term Measures CSAH 10/ CR 116 • No improvements needed • No improvements needed CSAH 10/ CSAH 50 • No improvements needed • No improvements needed CR 116/ Larkin Road • Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. • Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. • Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. 32 Intersection Short-Term Measures Long-Term Measures Larkin Road/ Blue Bonnet Drive •Construct a westbound right turn lane. •No additional improvements needed. 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 would be constructed in phases with the majority of the construction of the first phase of the Project occurring in the Spring of 2023. The timeline of project construction will depend on market conditions and may vary from the current foreseeable construction timeline. 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. Several residential and senior living development are currently under review by the City. These proposed developments are primarily concentrated towards the eastern portion of the City of Corcoran along CR 116 which extends north to south approximately 2,000 feet east of the Project Area. The Rush Creek Reserve development is currently under development approximately 500 feet north of the Project Area between CSAH 10 and CR 116. The current phase of the residential development will include total of 106 units including 29 single family homes, 16 twin-homes, 15 basement villas, and 27 townhomes. The development will also include wetland areas, common open space, and trail facilities. As noted in Item 11.b.iii of this EAW, a new wastewater lift station is being constructed to replace the previously used lift station on CSAH 10 as part of this project. The Pioneer Trail Business Park Project proposes construct a five-lot industrial/business park with a total of ten buildings and a new public road on an approximately 56-acre site at the northwest corner of Highway 55 and Pioneer Trail. The Project would include a mini storage/self-storage, gas/convenience, office, warehousing, retail, and light manufacturing uses. An EAW for the Pioneer Trail Business Park Project has been distributed for public comment. Full development of the business park is not anticipated to occur until 2026 and would be dependent on market conditions. 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. Potential impacts that were considered as part of the cumulative potential effects evaluation include waters resources, wetlands, public infrastructure, and loss of agricultural land, and transportation. Water Resources The project will convert undeveloped agricultural land into a proposed business park, which will increase impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. As discussed in Item 11 of this EAW, the proposed 33 additional impervious surface area is expected to result in higher runoff rates, volumes, and pollutants compared to the existing conditions. Other proposed developments in the area resulting in the conversion of agricultural and rural residential land to commercial, industrial and residential developments will similarly increase the area of impervious surfaces. These future developments will be required to implement stormwater BMPs to mitigate stormwater runoff impacts in accordance with all City, ECWMC, and MPCA approval and permitting requirements. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts to water quality and quantity are not anticipated. Public Infrastructure As discussed in Item 11, water supply for the Project will be provided through the City of Maple Grove under an existing contract with the City of Corcoran. Water supply for the Project will be consistent with the water supply planned for the Southeast Corcoran area. It is noted that the City is requesting that the Proposer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well within Corcoran Farms Business Park (approximately 110 by 110 feet in size). As discussed in Item 11, sewer and watermain improvements will be required to provide services to the Project. In order to avoid overloading the City’s existing and planned wastewater infrastructure, the Proposer will be required to limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day) which is consistent with the volume of wastewater planned for in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City of Corcoran regulates future development thought its land use policies and zoning requirements. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified the potential for future municipal well exploration areas and future studies to evaluate sewer and water extension to Southwest Corcoran. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts related to public infrastructure are not anticipated. Wetlands As described in Item 11, it is anticipated that the Project will impact approximately 0.7 acres of wetlands, which conservatively includes impacts associated with a future potential public road extension to the Project Area. Potential wetland impacts will be confirmed during final design and permitting of the Project. Planned development in the vicinity of the Project may also impact wetlands in the surrounding area. Wetlands are protected by state and federal laws, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and WCA, which require avoidance of wetland impacts when possible, and when avoidance is not possible, impacts must be minimized and mitigated. Adverse cumulative impacts to wetlands are not anticipated given the federal and state regulations that mandate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements for wetland impacts. Agricultural Land The Project will convert existing agricultural land to a business park development. Planned development in surrounding areas along CR 116 may also convert agricultural land to other land uses. The City of Corcoran guides development through the City’s land use plan and zoning ordinance. The Project is consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the Project Area and adjacent properties for future Light Industrial development. The City of Corcoran through their land use policies and zoning requirements, regulates future development and can protect agricultural land from future development as appropriate. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts to agricultural land are not anticipated. Transportation 34 A Traffic Impact Study for the Project was completed that incorporated future traffic growth and recommended mitigation measures to address traffic impacts. Appendix G includes the Traffic Impact Study. Future developments in the surrounding area that are anticipated to increase traffic congestion, would be required to complete a traffic impact study and identify mitigation measures to address these impacts. Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts related to traffic congestion are not anticipated. 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 the proposed 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 ________________________________ Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix A Figures Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Figure1: USGS Topographic Map 05.17.22 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW • Corcoran, MN 0 500 1,000 Feet Legend Site Hennepin County SITE Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityFigure 2: Hennepin County Location Map 05.17.22 Cororan Farms Business Park • Corcoran, MN 0 5 10 Miles Legend Site Hennepin_County County Boundaries Hennepin CountyHennepin County SITE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCEDRIVEBUILDING BFFE=976.00LOADING DOCK=972.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=119,462LOT SIZE=387,843PARKING STALLS=238BUILDING AFFE=976.00LOADING DOCK=972.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=77,116LOT SIZE=267,389PARKING STALLS=161BUILDING CFFE=976.00LOADING DOCK=972.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=168,517LOT SIZE=428,922PARKING STALLS=236BUILDING DFFE=976.00LOADING DOCK=972.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=97,055LOT SIZE=361,694PARKING STALLS=125751.0159.0120.118.024.0648.1260.0220.0463.0485.0159.0265.0492.0224.0120.032.118.0120.6120.032.018.024.0120.0120.0129.924.024.024.024.024.024.024.024.024.024.0EMPLOYEE ENTRANCEDRIVEEMPLOYEE ENTRANCEDRIVEEMPLOYEE ENTRANCEDRIVEEMPLOYEE &LOADING DOCKENTRANCE DRIVELOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKLOADING DOCKRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALLLOADING DOCKACCESSEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGEMPLOYEE PARKINGLOADING DOCK ANDEMPLOYEE ACCESS20' PARKING SETBACK20' PARKING SETBACKSTORMWATERPONDSTORMWATERPONDSTORMWATERPONDSTORMWATERPOND18.018.018.024.018.020.018.024.017.018.024.018.024.018.0L0T LINEL0T LINEL0T LINE10'BITUMINOUSTRAIL10'BITUMINOUSTRAIL10'BITUMINOUSTRAIL10'BITUMINOUSTRAILPARKING STALLS=23810% OFFICE=60 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=72 STALLS20% OFFICE=120 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=64 STALLS(ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)PARKING STALLS=16110% OFFICE=39 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=47 STALLS20% OFFICE=78 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=42 STALLS(ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)PARKING STALLS=12510% OFFICE=49 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=59 STALLS20% OFFICE=97 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=52 STALLS(NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)PARKING STALLS=23610% OFFICE=85 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=102 STALLS20% OFFICE=169 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=90 STALLS(NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)RETAINING WALLL0T LINEL0T LINECONNECT TOEXISTINGSANITARYCONNECT TOEXISTINGWATERMAINCONNECT TOEXISTINGWATERMAINRETAINING WALL18.018.018.018.018.018.0BUILDING EFFE=974.00LOADING DOCK=970.00SQUARE FOOTAGE=264,246LOT SIZE=1,079,874PARKING STALLS=341PARKING STALLS=34110% OFFICE=132 STALLS90% WAREHOUSE=158 STALLS20% OFFICE=264 STALLS80% WAREHOUSE=141 STALLS(NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080)24.018.018.0FUTURE STREETEXTENSIONTEMPORARYCUL-DE-SACLOADING DOCKACCESS300' SHORELANDOVERLAY LIMIT300' SHORELANDOVERLAY LIMIT300' SHORELANDOVERLAY LIMITL0T LINENSCALE IN FEET0100 200LOUCKSW:\2021\21442\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1 SITE PLANPlotted: 02 /23 / 2022 10:8 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369763.424.5505www.loucksinc.comPLANNINGCIVIL ENGINEERINGLAND SURVEYINGLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREENVIRONMENTALSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSPROFESSIONAL SIGNATUREQUALITY CONTROLCADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project areinstruments of the Consultant professional services for use solelywith respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be usedon other projects, for additions to this project, or for completionof this project by others without written approval by theConsultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may bepermitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files forinformation and reference only. All intentional or unintentionalrevisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall bemade at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additionsor deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify theConsultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.CADD QUALIFICATIONLARKIN ROADFEASIBILITYCORCORAN, MNLEE & ASSOCIATES5353 GAMBLE DRIVE, SUITE 106MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416UTILITY PLANFigure 323CIVIL LEGEND 4/27/2022 Figure 4: 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Map 05.17.22 Corcoran Farms Business Park • Corcoran, MN 0 200 400 Feet Legend Site Hennepin_County Rural/Ag Residential Existing Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Mixed Residential High Density Residential Rural Service/Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Business Park Light Industrial Public/Semi-Public Parks/Open Space Agricultural Preserve (Date of Expiration) Open Water Parcel Boundaries SITE Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ $+10$+50 Commerce StW75th Ave N Buckskin TrAuger Ave Larkin Rd L49A L49A L49A L49A L25AL25A L25A L25A L25A L25A L25A L132A L24A L25A L132A L36A L37B L37B L37B L37B L37B L36A L36A L36A L37B L37B L37B L37B L37BL37B L22C2 L22C2L22C2 L22C2L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2 L22C2L22C2 L22E L22E L22D2 L22D2 L22D2 L22D2 L24A L24A L24A L24A L24A L24A L23A L23A 23 26 T119 R23W Corcoran Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend Project Area Mapunit Symbol,Mapunit Name L132A,Hamel-Glencoe complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes L22C2,Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded L22D2,Lester loam, 10 to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded L22E,Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent slopes L23A,Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes L24A,Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes L25A,Le Sueur loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes L36A,Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes L37B,Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes L49A,Klossner soils, depressional, 0 to 1 percent slopes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, NRCS, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:6,000 0 250 500 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Soil Classifications 5 FIGURE 5 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_!(!($+50 $+116 $+10 75th Ave NCain RdOl d S e t t l ers R dTrail La 70th Ave N Larkin Rd Abilene L a Gleason RdWCorcoranTrE CorcoranTrMeister Rd Maple Hill RdHorseshoe TrKalk RdUnnamed(west portion) (27043902) Unnamed (27044000) Unnamed (27042500) Unnamed (27043700) Unnamed (27043100) Unnamed (27043800) Unnamed (27042400) Unnamed (27042600) Unnamed (27043000) Unnamed (27042900) Unnamed (27042800) Unnamed (27042700) Unnamed (27043200) Unnamed(east portion) (27043901)RushC reek,S o uth F ork (M-062-0 0 4-002)Unnamed Creek(M-062-004-002-004)UnnamedStream (M-06 2 -012)UnnamedCreek ( M -062-004-002-002)Rush Creek, South Fork 07010206-760 (FishesBio; InvertBio) County Ditch 16 07010206-761 (FishesBio) 15 1314 22 23 24 27 26 25 34 35 36 T119 R23W Maple Grove Corcoran Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend 1 Mile Radius Project Area Field Delineated Wetland !( 2022 MPCA Impaired Streams (Draft) Minnesota Public Waters Delineations Public Water Watercourse Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Waters Basins NHD - Flowline NHD - Waterbody NWI Circular 39 Class 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basin or Flat 2 - Wet Meadow 3 - Shallow Marsh 4 - Deep Marsh 5 - Shallow Open Water 6 - Shrub Swamp 7 - Wooded Swamp 8 - Bog Riverine Systems Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, MNDNR, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:24,000 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Water Resources Map 6 FIGURE 6 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ Wetland 3 Potential Impact 0.001 ac. Wetland 1/1A Potential Impact 0.02 ac.Wetland 5 Potential Impact 0.11 ac. Wetland 6 Potential Impact 0.35 ac. Wetland 7 Potential Impact 0.14 ac. Wetland 3 Potential Impact 0.07 ac. Wetland 1/1A Potential Impact 0.001 ac. $+10$+50 Auger A v e Larkin Rd Wetland 2 Building A Building B Building CBuilding D Building E Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-28 By: kjmuellerLegend Potential Wetland Impact Field Delineated Wetland Business Park Concept Plan Road/Trail/Parking Future Street Extension Stormwater Pond Building Footprint Loading Dock Project Area Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, MNDNR, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:4,800 0 200 400 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-28T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Potential Wetland Impacts 7 FIGURE 7 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A!A !A !A!A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A!A!A !A!A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A $+50 $+116 $+10 70th Ave N Larkin Rd Blue Bonnet Dr22 23 24 27 26 25 34 35 36 T119 R23W Corcoran 162838 735496 143364 192803 766104 157803 421780 104845 766105766106 400849162756 183900 457850 140161 418439 140125 152582 420170 158311 148105 104756 118887 737570 248503 259743 155316 168654 104798 266119 431415 248498 418433 266495 266499 450279 470764 592153 415893 492601 489020 752470 460094 418412 450281435842 506579 597473 563093 635243 489022 450334435804 647388 644889 607761 511975479959 638346 464199 630065 615243 725324 594127 728994 728690 635290 531546 571699 607755 648517 688035678810 595250 442473 537410 450335 435876 551597 191186 460076 452505 501470 197322 735701 660581538256 460062 478397 498353 507120 655063 500320 464041 197432 510606 169204 538247 810852 274923 188265 192837 755332 450371 538281 500319 532990 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend County Well Index !A Commercial !A Domestic !A Industrial !A Irrigation !A Monitor Well !A Public Supply 500 ft Radius 1/2 mi Radius Project Area Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, NRCS, MNDOT, MNDOH 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:14,400 0 600 1,200 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW County Well Index 8 FIGURE 8 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_ !. !.!. !. !." " " "" " " " " " " " ! !! !! ! ## # $+50 $+10 $+116 Commerce St E Larkin Rd CommerceStW75th Ave N Auger Ave BuckskinTrBlue Bonnet DrW Corcoran TrE CorcoranTrAbilene La Gazelle Marketing Minnegasco Corcoran 2016 Downtown Corcoran Sewer and Water Improvements Phils Quality Automotive Custom Filtration Inc LITHGOW AUTOMOTIVE INC Heidi's Lifestyle Gardens Westside Wholesale Tire Inc SE Corcoran 2020 Trunk Watermain Improvements Western Excavating Midstate Crane Service A1 Outdoor Power Corcoran Crossroads LLC Concrete Science Pro-Tech Auto Repair Featherbrook Farm Rush Creek Reserve Heidi's Lifestyle Gardens Countryside Service Pro Drywall and Painting Inc Treptau Implement Company Sunram Construction Inc Corcoran Pet Care Center Miller Brothers Corcoran Auto Parts Pauls Corcoran Service Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-05 By: kjmuellerLegend Project Area 500 ft Buffer MPCA Sites Program Name !.Multiple Programs "Feedlots "Hazardous Waste !Investigation and Cleanup !Stormwater #Tanks Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Stantec, Hennepin Co., MnGeo, MnDOT, MPCA 3. Background: 2020 color 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:9,600 0 400 800 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-05T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW MPCA WIMN Potentially Contaminated Sites 9 FIGURE 9 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix B Wetland Delineation and WCA Notice of Decision Larkin Road Site City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for Loucks Associates by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2021-166) October 11, 2021 Larkin Road Site Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 2. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 2 3. METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations ....................................................... 3 4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information ........................................... 4 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations......................................................................... 4 4.3 Other Areas ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.4 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations ....................................................... 5 4.5 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination .................................... 7 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION .............................................................................. 8 FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Public Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset 7. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas APPENDICES A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms C. Precipitation Information D. Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Assessment 1 Larkin Road Site Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY • The 68.63-acre Larkin Road Site was inspected on August 19, 2021 for the presence and extent of wetland. • The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed seven wetlands within the site boundaries. • The soil survey showed Cordova (Predominantly Hydric), Hamel-Glencoe (Predominantly Hydric) and Glencoe (Hydric) and Hamel, overwash-Hamel (Partially Hydric) as the Hydric Soil types mapped on the property. Soil mapping units are summarized in Table 2. • The DNR Public Waters Inventory showed one DNR Public Wetland: Unnamed (27- 430W) on the western portion of the site, and one DNR Public Watercourse: Unnamed Creek (M-062-004-002-002) flowing north along the eastern border of the site. • The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Canal/Ditch flowing north along the eastern border of the site. • Seven wetlands delineated within the site boundaries are summarized in Table 3. Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 2 2.OVERVIEW The 68.63-acre Larkin Road Site was inspected on August 19, 2021 for the presence and extent of wetland. The property was located in Section 26, Township 119 North, Range 23 West, City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The site was situated west of CR-116, south of CR- 50 and north of Larkin Road (Figure 1). The site boundaries corresponded to Hennepin County PID #: 2611923130006 The site consisted of farm fields, agricultural storage units and rural residential housing. The topography of the site sloped from an elevation of 988 ft MSL on the southern and north central portions of the site down to a low of 954 ft MSL on the northern portion. Surrounding land use consisted of single-family residential, farmland and rural residential. Seven wetlands were delineated within the site boundaries. The delineated wetland boundaries and existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. Figure 2 does represent an official survey. 3.METHODS 3.1 Wetland Delineation Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were marked with pin flags that were located using Trimble R1 GPS Units. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland- upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 7, 2010). Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components). Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 3 Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2018 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2018. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). 3.2 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations Areas in agricultural cropland that exhibited potential wetland signatures on aerial photography and with low or depressional topography were reviewed generally following methods described in Using Aerial Imagery to Assess Wetland Hydrology (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) 2010) and Guidance for Submittal of Delineation Reports to the St. Paul District Corps of Engineers and Wetland Conservation Act Local Governmental Units in Minnesota, Version 2.0 (USACE 2015). These methods use aerial photography and antecedent precipitation conditions to identify areas that have wetland hydrology signatures during periods of typical precipitation. Available years of Farm Service Agency (FSA) aerial photography were reviewed for the site to determine long-term hydrology. In cases where additional aerial photography was relevant, available, and necessary to make hydrology determinations, we reviewed aerial photography from other sources such as the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office (MnGEO) and Google Earth. Signatures at locations of potential wetlands on aerial photographs were interpreted and classified using seven codes (Table 1). Wetland hydrology was assumed to be present within areas exhibiting wetland signatures in more than 50% of years with normal climatic conditions based on antecedent precipitation. Table 1. Aerial photograph interpretation codes Code Classification CS Crop stress DO Drowned out NC Not cropped SW Standing water WS Wetland signature AP Altered pattern NV Normal vegetation This analysis used only aerial photographs taken following periods of precipitation within the normal range as determined using the Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval tool (Minnesota Climatology Office 2015). This tool classifies antecedent precipitation as Normal (N), Wet (W) or Dry (D) by comparing precipitation during the three months preceding the estimated date of aerial photography to the 30-year average from 1981-2010. Dates of aerial imagery were determined from the MnGeo database and July 1 was used as the estimated date of FSA aerial photography. Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 4 4.RESULTS 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) showed seven wetlands mapped within the site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Cordova (Predominantly Hydric), Hamel-Glencoe (Predominantly Hydric) and Glencoe (Hydric) and Hamel,overwash-Hamel (Partially Hydric) as the Hydric Soil types mapped on the property. Soil types mapped on the property are listed below in Table 2 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015 showed one DNR Public Wetland: Unnamed (27-430W) on the western portion of the site, and one DNR Public Watercourse: Unnamed Creek (M-062-004-002-002) flowing north along the eastern border of the site (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Canal/Ditch flowing north along the eastern border of the site (Figure 6). 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on August 19, 2021. Seven wetlands were identified and delineated on the property based on field observations and aerial photography (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix B. The following descriptions of the wetlands and adjacent uplands reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. Herbaceous vegetation and crops were actively growing at that time. Precipitation conditions were typical based on the Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database method, and drier than the normal range based on available 30-day rolling total precipitation (Appendix C). Wetland descriptions are shown on the following page on Table 3. Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Larkin Road Site Symbol Soil Name Acres % of Area % Hydric Hydric Category L22C2 Lester loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 14.9 21.60% 2 Predominantly Non-Hydric L22E Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent slopes 1.3 1.90% 0 Non Hydric L23A Cordova loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 12.3 17.90% 95 Predominantly Hydric L24A Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 4.6 6.70% 100 Hydric L25A Le Sueur loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 13.7 20.00% 15 Predominantly Non-Hydric L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 15 21.80% 45 Partially Hydric L37B Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 3.3 4.80% 5 Predominantly Non-Hydric L132A Hamel-Glencoe complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3.6 5.20% 90 Predominantly Hydric Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 5 4.3 Other Areas Tributary 1 (T1) was a perennial tributary that flowed north along the eastern portion of the site boundary. Tributary 1 corresponded to DNR Public Watercourse: Unnamed Creek (M-062-004- 002-002) and encompassed approximately 662.5 linear feet within site limits. 4.4 Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations Recent, available Google Earth, MNGEO and FSA photo years were assessed for wet/normal/dry climatic conditions using the Wetland Delineation Precipitation Data Retrieval tool. Available aerial photographs from the 6 most recent and available normal years (2006, 2010, 2012, 2018, 2019 and 2020) were used for the offsite hydrology review (Table 4). Table 4. Decision matrix for offsite hydrology review. Source Photo Date Date Used for Climate Assessment Climatic Conditions FSA 7/1/2019 (Assumed) 7/1/2019 Normal FSA 8/31/2017 9/1/2017 Wet FSA 9/27/2015 10/1/2015 Normal (Late Season) FSA 7/12/2013 7/12/2013 Wet FSA 9/12/2010 9/12/2010 Normal FSA 7/31/2009 8/1/2009 Dry FSA 7/30/2008 8/1/2008 Dry FSA 7/1/2003 (assumed) 7/1/2003 Wet FSA 5/6/1991 5/6/1991 Wet MN GEO April 4-10, 2020 4/4/2020 Most Recent Wet Photo MN GEO 5/1/2018 5/1/2018 Normal MN GEO April 9-22, 2016 4/15/2016 Dry MN GEO March 25- April 4, 2012 4/1/2012 Normal MN GEO April 23, 2008 5/1/2008 Wet MN GEO April 17-18, 2006 5/1/2006 Wet Google Earth 5/11/2020 5/11/2020 Normal Google Earth 4/5/2017 4/5/2017 Dry Google Earth 10/11/2014 10/11/2014 Normal (Late Season) Google Earth 6/6/2006 6/6/2006 Normal Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 6 Results - Twelve areas showing a wet signature on the 2020 MNGEO photo – most recent wet photo – were included in the review. The location of Areas A – L are shown on Figure 7. Photographs for each year of review and the Wetland Hydrology Recording from Aerial Imagery - Recording Form are included in Appendix D. Area A was not mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey or wetland on the NWI and did not show any wet signatures on normal aerial photographs. This area did not require field verification and was determined to be non-wetland based on the recording form decision matrix. Area B was not mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey or wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 17% of normal aerial photographs. This area did not require field verification and was determined to be non-wetland based on the recording form decision matrix. Area C was not mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey or wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 33% of normal aerial photographs. This area required field verification and was determined to be non-wetland based on lack of one primary or two secondary hydrology indicators. This area coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point AA (SP-AA) which can be found within Appendix B. Sample Point AA was taken within a relatively flat area that was dominated by healthy soybean crop within the east central portion of the site (See Figure 2). Area D was mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, was not mapped as wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 50% of normal aerial photographs. This area required field verification and was determined to be non-wetland based on lack of one primary or two secondary hydrology indicators. Geomorphic position was not applicable due to proximity of functional catch basins. This area coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point BB (SP-BB) and Sample Point CC (SP-CC), which can be found within Appendix B. Sample Points BB & CC were taken within depressional areas that were dominated by healthy soybean crop (See Figure 2). Area E was mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, was not mapped as wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 83% of normal aerial photographs. This area was determined to be wetland based on the recording decision matrix and was confirmed during the field visit. The boundaries of this area were determined during the offsite aerial review, which expands the eastern boundary of Wetland 5 into the adjacent soybean crop field. This area coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point 5-1W (SP5-1W), which can be found within Appendix B. Areas F, G, J and K were mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, were not mapped as wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 17% of normal aerial photographs. These areas did not require field verification and were determined to be non-wetland based on the recording form decision matrix. Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 7 Areas H and I were mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, were not mapped as wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 67% of normal aerial photographs. These areas were determined to be wetland based on the recording decision matrix and were confirmed during the field visit. Area H coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point 6-1W (SP6-1W) and Area I coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point 7-1W (SP7-1W), which can be found within Appendix B. Area L was mapped as hydric soil on the soil survey, mapped as a PEM1Af wetland on the NWI and showed wet signatures on 17% of aerial photography during normal precipitation years. This area required field verification based on the recording form decision matrix and was determined to be non-wetland based on lack of one primary or two secondary hydrology indicators. This area coincides with data sheets labeled Sample Point DD (SP-DD), which can be found within Appendix B. Sample Point DD was taken within a mowed hillslope that was dominated by Reed canary grass, stinging nettle and unknown grasses within the southern portion of the site (See Figure 2). This area was upslope of a culvert that drained south under Larkin Road. 4.5 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), (2) delineation concurrence under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and (3) Approved Jurisdictional Determination under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act for delineated Wetland 6. Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report 8 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation Completed by: Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321 Kyle Uhler Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator Will Effertz, Ecologist / Soil Specialist Report Prepared by: Will Effertz, Ecologist / Soil Specialist Report reviewed by: ____________________________________ Date: October 11, 2021 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset 7. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Map Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,250 Feet Site Boundary Source: ESRI Streets Basemap CR - 50 CR - 116 Larkin Road !( !( !( !(XY XYXY XY # # # SP-AA SP-BB SP-CC SP-DD Wetland 7 Wetland 7Wetland 1 / 1A Wetland 6 Wetland 5 Wetland 4 Wetland 3 Wetland 2 SP7-1 SP6-1 SP5-1 SP5-2 SP4-1 SP3-1SP3&2-1U SP2-1 SP1-1 T r i b u t a r y 1 : P e r e n n i a l t i b u t a r yUn n am e d C r e e k (M - 0 6 2 - 0 0 4 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 2 )Ap p r o x im a t l e y 6 6 2 . 5 L i n e a r F e e t O n - S i t e 964 962966 9709689609589 7 2 974 956 976978980984982952 986 9 5 4 988950 990 9489929 4 6 956948 964 958 990972950 988964 960 976974 966974980964962 9 6 6 972964984 964 970 962950 972 974980974 9709 6 2 970968 988 966 97496897297695 6 978968966960 980 958978 9 6 2 972950 964966980970962956982960970964948948 972990 978956962 958 968964964966970978960968964 976 972958978 966974964 9 7 6 980982 956954 982966986974 954 9589 6 4 9589 5 2 958 97 4968984 972976 964 974 99 0 97297698696 2 984954982 964964960 962 964958 96 0 958 984 962 966968972 966 974968958 978954 Figure 2 - Existing Conditions Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet #Catch Basin XY Culvert Unnamed Creek (M-062-004-002-002) Transect !(Sample Points Site Boundary Wetland Boundaries Upland Area Hennepin County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Wetland ID Size (Acres) 1/1A 0.63 2 0.26 3 0.39 4 0.27 5 4.39 6 0.35 7 0.14 PEM1C PEM1A PEM1A PEM1Cd PEM1A PEM1Cd PEM1A PEM1Ad PEM1Af PEM1Cd PABG PEM1C PEM1AdPEM1C PEM1C PUBFxPABGx PEM1Cx PABGx PEM1C PEM1C PUBGx Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary PABG PABGx PEM1A PEM1Ad PEM1Af PEM1C PEM1Cd PEM1Cx PUBFx PUBGx Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USFWS L23A L36A L23A L37B L25A L22C2 L24A L24AL24A L132A L132A L22C2 L25A L22C2 L25A L22C2 L37B L25A L25A L23A L37B L22E L25A L22C2 L22C2 L36A L22C2 L37B L49A L22E L22D2 L37B L49A L25A L36A L22C2 L22C2 L24A L24A L22C2L22C2 L37B L37B L37BL23A L37B Figure 4 - Soil Survey Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Hydric/Predominantly Hydric Partially Hydric Predominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS See narrative for soil series information. Unnamed (27-430 W) Unnamed (27-438 W) Unnamed (27-432 W) Unnamed (27-429 W) Unnamed(west portion) (27-439-02 W) Unnamed (27-431 W) Unnamed (27-428 W) Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Site Boundary Public Waters Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Watercourse Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 1,000 Feet Site Boundary Hydro Junction Artificial Path Canal/Ditch Connector Stream/River Lake/Pond Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USGS 964 962966 970968960958972974956 976978980982984952 988 9 5 4 986990 9509489929 4 6 9 6 2 964 968976948 948982 966976 964956 960974 970986 962966 972972 980982972988 980984 986 964 974 958960950 962 9649 6 2 9 6 2 978976 96295497497496497096 0 972 974 970976 962960 978962960964964 958 976958 958 960 962964 974 966964958962 95 6 9729729 6 6 978 9669809 6 4 966990990 972966 974974968 964980978974958950 96 2 990974964 964 966 976978966 978 968 956964 956964976 962956988 960 970982974954 982 984956974984974954 96496895 8 964 97 6 984972970 982 972 96 4976958 972970956 956970966954966984 984966968956 964960976968 966968972958 978966 966974 970 976 962978 954Figure 7 - Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : MN Geo, 2020 (Most Recent Wet Photo) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Hennepin County Lidar Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 1 of 12 Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource (wetlan d, tributary, lake, etc.) in the State of Minnesota under state and federal regulatory programs. Applicants for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form (see the paragraph on MPARS at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information). This form is only applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs; other local applications and approvals may be required. Depending on the nature of the project and the location and type of water resources impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over different types of resources. Regulatory Review Structure Federal The St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area. State There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. It is administered by local government units (LGUs) which can be counties, townships, cities, watershed districts, watershed management organizations or state agencies (on state -owned land). The Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially-designated public waters via the Public Waters Work Permit Program (DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project. Required Information Prior to submitting an application, applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project. Project proponents can request a pre- application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in Sections 1 through 5 of this joint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a venue (such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings) for potential a pplicants to discuss their projects with multiple agencies prior to submitting an application. Contact information is provided below. The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations . • For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations, submit Parts 1, 2 and 5, and Attachment A. • For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions, WCA no-loss determinations, and activities not requiring mitigation, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachment B. • For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan, submit Parts 1 thru 5, and Attachments C and D. • For local road authority activities that qualify for the state’s local road wetland replacement program, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachments C, D (if applicable), and E to both the Corps and the LGU. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 2 of 12 Submission Instructions Send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to: U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of responsibilities and contact information, visit the St. Paul District’s website at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx and select “Minnesota” from the contact Information box. Alternatively, applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the appropriate field office. Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless specifically requested. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project. Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If necessary, contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) web site (www.bwsr.state.mn.us) to determine the appropriate LGU. DNR Public Waters Permitting: In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) for submission of Public Waters permit applications (https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login). Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies, applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form. The MPARS print/save function will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which, at a minimum, will satisfy Parts one and two of this joint application. For certain types of activities, the MPARS application may also provide all of the necessary informati on required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure t hat the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the project (see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the require d information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the remainder of the joint application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 3 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf , the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Jeff Minea/JMMK, LLC Mailing Address: 18805 37th Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55446 Phone: 612-701-7741 E-mail Address: jminea@lee-associates.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Will Effertz, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Mailing Address: 2500 Shadywood Road #130, Orono MN 55331 Phone: Cell : 952-290-6340 E-mail Address: thg Will@kjolhaugenv.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Hennepin City/Township: Corcoran Parcel ID and/or Address: 20130 Larkin Road, #2611923130006 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): S26 T119N R23W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): ------------------------------------ Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 70 acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Currently agricultural production site and proposing an industrial development. Delineation was performed per the attached map and report. Needing confirmation of wetland boundaries and type for potential impacts per the attached site plan. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 4 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of Impact2 Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area4 County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact Area5 TBD Wetland fill undetermined undetermined Undetermined unknown Hennepin 1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”. 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”. 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Date: September 30, 2021 I hereby authorize Loucks, Inc. to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. 1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 5 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): Wetland Type Confirmation Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this reque st alone, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review ar ea (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements , a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absen t on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX B Wetland Delineation Data Forms Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP1-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology X Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 95 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACU 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 3 0 95 380 0.00% N 0 Phleum pratense 20 Y Schizachyrium scoparium 10 N FACU Dactylis glomerata Trifolium pratense 40 Y FACU (Plot size:5 ft Radius Asclepias syriaca 20 Y FACU 0 4.00 95 380 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 5 N FACU 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area was located near ditch, therefore, hydrology is significantly disturbed but normal circumstances were present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Assumed depleted under thick dark surface (A12) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 0 - 24 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP1-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 15 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP1-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Cd , or hydrology , or hydrology X Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 90 180 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 2 2 0 0 100.00% Y0 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Urtica dioica 10 N FACW 0 2.14 105 225 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 15 45 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 1If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area was located near ditch, therefore, hydrology is significantly disturbed but normal circumstances were present. Y Acer negundo 15 Y FAC Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 0 - 24 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP1-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 4.00 80 320 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Trifolium pratense 60 Y FACU (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 15 N FACU Asclepias syriaca 5 N N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 80 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACU 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 80 320 0.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP2 & 3-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP2 & 3-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 4 10YR 2/1 100 Clay Loam 4 to 10 10YR 2/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 18 to 24 10YR 3/1 93 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches 10YR 4/1 5 D M Clay Loam *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 10 to 18 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 2If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 2.35 85 200 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 10 N FACU Carex vulpinoidea 10 N Trifolium pratense 5 N FACU Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 85 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACW 70 140 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 15 60 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP2-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP2-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 24 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 3If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 2.50 100 250 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 25 Y FACU Carex vulpinoidea 15 N Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 100 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACW 75 150 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 2 1 25 100 50.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP3-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP3-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 12 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam 12 to 20 10YR 2/1 94 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 20 to 24 10YR 4/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 10YR 4/1 3 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP4-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 115 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACW 20 40 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 45 180 50.00% N 0 Phalaris arundinacea 20 N Asclepias syriaca 20 N FACU Poa Pratensis 50 Y FAC (Plot size:5 ft Radius Trifolium repens 25 Y FACU 0 3.22 115 370 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 50 150 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 16 to 24 10YR 3/1 94 10YR 4/6 2 C M Loam No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 10YR 4/1 2 D M Loam 10 to 16 10YR 2/2 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Loam 0 to 10 10YR 2/2 100 Loam Sampling Point:SP4-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel - Glencoe Complex (Predominantly-Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 4If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 20 20 0 0 0 2.29 105 240 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 20 N FACU Carex stipata 20 N Erigeron annuus 5 N FACU Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 105 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- OBL 60 120 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 25 100 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP4-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP4-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 16 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam 16 - 24 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point located in area dominated with healthy soybean crop Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP5-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% N 0 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soybean farm field, therefore, soil and vegetation are significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus X X N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Y Lester Consociation (Predominatly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 22 to 24 10YR 5/2 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam 0 to 22 10YR 3/1 100 Loam Sampling Point:SP5-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP5-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 85 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FAC 15 30 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Setaria pumila 10 N Carex stipata 60 Y OBL (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phalaris arundinacea 15 N FACW 0 1.41 85 120 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 60 60 10 30 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 5If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Glencoe Consociation (Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X 22 - 25 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 25 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 16 - 22 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam 0 - 16 10YR 2/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP5-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 40 120 0 3.60 100 360 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Poa Pratensis 40 Y FAC (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 30 Y FACU Taraxacum officinale 15 N Trifolium pratense 15 N FACU N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 100 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACU 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 60 240 50.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP5-2UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP5-2U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 22 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 22 to 24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 26 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 24 to 26 10YR 4/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel, overwash-Hamel Complex (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 5If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 55 55 0 0 0 1.84 95 175 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 5 N FACW Carex stipata 40 Y OBL (Plot size:5 ft Radius Phleum pratense 15 Y FACU Scirpus atrovirens 15 Y Trifolium pratense 5 N FACU Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW Solidago gigantea Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 95 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- OBL 20 40 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 4 3 20 80 75.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP5-2WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP5-2W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 10 10YR 2/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 10 - 22 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 22 - 24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel, overwash-hamel (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- X X N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point located within area dominated with healthy soybean crop. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP6-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP6-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 10 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 10 to 24 10YR 3/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) NHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point located within area with drowned out soybean crop, vegetation is assumed based on hydrology indicators. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP6-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 10 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 0 0 0 0.00% Y 0 Glycine max 10 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 5.00 10 50 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 10 50 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 6If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Hamel, overwash-hamel (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 0 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13)X True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X 16 to 24 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay Loam No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches. Area was effectively drained with catch basin present, therefore, Geomorphic Positon was not applicable. Coincided with Area H during offsite aerial review and showed 67% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 10 - 16 10YR 3/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 0 - 10 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay Loam Sampling Point:SP6-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel - Glencoe Complex (Predominantly Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- X X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point located within area dominated by healthy soybean crop Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP7-1UMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP7-1U Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 24 10YR 2/1 100 Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Assume depleted below thick dark surface (A12) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Depression/Swale Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Hamel - Glencoe Complex (Predominantly Hydric) NWI Classification: 1 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius Wetland 7If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 5 15 0 2.35 100 235 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 65 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Persicaria pensylvanica 15 N FACW Phleum pratense 15 N Setaria pumila 5 N FAC Y 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 100 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACU 80 160 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 15 60 100.00% Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP7-1WMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sampling Point:SP7-1W Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 8 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Assumed depleted below thick dark surface (A12) Depth (inches):8 inches Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Within close proximity to gasline Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 8 inches. Coincided with Area I during offsite aerial review and showed 67% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point located within area dominated by healthy soybean crop Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP-AAMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% N 0 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus X X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Y Le Sueur Consociation (Predominatly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 10 to 16 10YR 3/1 85 10YR 5/1 15 D M Clay Loam No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches. Coincided with Area C during offsite aerial review and showed 33% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 16 to 24 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 5/1 10 D M Clay Loam 6 to 10 10YR 2/1 85 10YR 5/1 15 D M Clay Loam 0 to 6 10YR 2/1 100 Loam Sampling Point:SP-AA Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Lester Consociation (Predominatly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- X X N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soybean farm field, therefore, soil and vegetation are significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius N 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point located within area dominated by healthy soybean crop. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP-BBMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP-BB Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 8 10YR 2/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Loam 8 to 24 10YR 2/1 94 10YR 4/6 3 D M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches. Area was effectively drained with catch basin present, therefore, Geomorphic Positon was not applicable. Coincided with Area D during offsite aerial review and showed 50% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 10YR 5/1 3 D M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: Y Lester Consociation (Predominatly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- X X NA Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area located within tilled soy bean farmfield, therefore, soil and vegetation is significantly disturbed and normal circumstances are not present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 90 450 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 90 450 Glycine max 90 Y UPL (Plot size:5 ft Radius NA 0 Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- 0 0 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% Sample point located within area dominated by healthy soybean Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP-CCMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SP-CC Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 to 8 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 8 to 20 10YR 2/1 97 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay Loam 10YR 5/1 10 D M Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 24 inches. Area was effectively drained with catch basin present, therefore, Geomorphic Positon was not applicable. Coincided with Area D during offsite aerial review and showed 50% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes 20 to 24 10YR 3/1 85 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Corcoran Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 08/19/2021 Sampling Point:SP-DDMN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Linear S: 26 T:119N R:23W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology X Larkin Road Site Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30 ft Radius 90 (Plot size:15 ft Radius Tree Stratum (Plot size: -------------------- FACW 70 140 Morphogical adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 2 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Urtica dioica 10 N Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW (Plot size:5 ft Radius Poa pratensis 20 Y FAC 0 2.22 90 200 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 20 60 Absolute % Cover30 ft Radius If yes, optional wetland site ID: 30-day precipitation rolling average drier than normal range. Typical based on precipitation gridded database. Sample area was mowed and close to nearby culvert, therefore, vegetation and hydrology was significantly disturbed but normal circumstances were present. N Dominan t Species Indicator Staus X Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Y Hamel, overwash-Hamel (Partially Hydric) NWI Classification: 2 to 3 Lat:Long:-------------------------Datum:-------------------- Investigator(s):Will Effertz Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:See Joint Application Form State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X No free water or saturation was observed to a depth of 5 inches. Area was effectively drained with culvert present downslope, therefore, Geomorphic Positon was not applicable. Coincided with Area L during offsite aerial review and showed 17% wet signatures during normal photos. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches): Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Depth (inches):5 inches Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Compacted Gravel Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) YHydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) 0 to 5 10YR 2/1 85 10YR 4/6 15 C M Loam Gravel inclusions Sampling Point:SP-DD Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX C Precipitation Information 10/4/21, 9:33 PM Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database https://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=456440&passYutm83=4992829&passcounty=Hennepin…1/1 Minnesota State Climatology Office State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources home | current conditions | journal | past data | summaries | agriculture | other sites | about us Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Hennepin township number: 119N township name: Corcoran range number: 23W nearest community: Corcoran section number: 26 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Thursday, August 19, 2021 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: July 2021 second prior month: June 2021 third prior month: May 2021 estimated precipitation total for this location:2.66R 1.22R 3.30R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:2.42 3.47 2.44 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.84 5.08 4.02 type of month: dry normal wet normal dry normal monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 1 = 2 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)10 (Normal) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5/30/21 6/14/21 6/29/21 7/14/21 7/29/21 8/13/21 8/28/21Daily and monthly total precipitation (inches) monthly precip daily precip 30d rolling total 30 -day rolling total normal precip range Site Visit Climate Conditions Larkin Road Site, Corcoran Site Visit: 8/19/2021 Larkin Road Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX D Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Assessment Corcoran, MN: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Monthly Totals: 2021 (latitude: 45.08758 longitude: 93.55352) Target: T119 R23 S26 mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre (inches) Jan 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD .87 Feb 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD .59 Mar 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD 2.84 Apr 2021 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 2.38 May 2021 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 3.65 Jun 2021 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 1.00 Jul 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD 2.64 Aug 2021 27 119N 22W 31 BYRG 5.16 Sep 2021 27 119N 22W 1 SWCD 3.20 June/July/August Daily Records Date Precip. Jun 1, 2021 0 Jun 2, 2021 0 Jun 3, 2021 .02 Jun 4, 2021 0 Jun 5, 2021 0 Jun 6, 2021 0 Jun 7, 2021 0 Jun 8, 2021 0 Jun 9, 2021 m Jun 10, 2021 m Jun 11, 2021 0 Jun 12, 2021 0 Jun 13, 2021 0 Jun 14, 2021 0 Jun 15, 2021 0 Jun 16, 2021 0 Jun 17, 2021 0 Jun 18, 2021 0 Jun 19, 2021 0 Jun 20, 2021 .01 Jun 21, 2021 .28 Jun 22, 2021 0 Jun 23, 2021 0 Jun 24, 2021 .06 Jun 25, 2021 0 Jun 26, 2021 0 Jun 27, 2021 .15 Jun 28, 2021 .05 Jun 29, 2021 .25 Jun 30, 2021 .18 1981-2010 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT 30% 0.42 0.40 1.16 1.85 2.44 3.47 2.42 3.02 1.88 1.27 1.01 0.57 16.13 25.88 25.96 70% 0.81 0.87 1.94 2.93 4.02 5.08 4.84 4.78 4.40 3.09 2.05 1.41 20.85 31.49 32.06 mean 0.71 0.67 1.62 2.61 3.32 4.32 3.86 4.04 3.34 2.41 1.58 1.06 18.88 29.54 29.36 Date Precip. Jul 1, 2021 0 Jul 2, 2021 0 Jul 3, 2021 0 Jul 4, 2021 0 Jul 5, 2021 0 Jul 6, 2021 .22 Jul 7, 2021 0 Jul 8, 2021 0 Jul 9, 2021 0 Jul 10, 2021 0 Jul 11, 2021 0 Jul 12, 2021 0 Jul 13, 2021 0 Jul 14, 2021 2.00 Jul 15, 2021 0 Jul 16, 2021 0 Jul 17, 2021 0 Jul 18, 2021 0 Jul 19, 2021 0 Jul 20, 2021 0 Jul 21, 2021 0 Jul 22, 2021 .10 Jul 23, 2021 0 Jul 24, 2021 .20 Jul 25, 2021 0 Jul 26, 2021 0 Jul 27, 2021 0 Jul 28, 2021 .12 Jul 29, 2021 0 Jul 30, 2021 0 Jul 31, 2021 0 Date Precip. Aug 1, 2021 0 Aug 2, 2021 0 Aug 3, 2021 0 Aug 4, 2021 0 Aug 5, 2021 0 Aug 6, 2021 0 Aug 7, 2021 .25 Aug 8, 2021 .10 Aug 9, 2021 .12 Aug 10, 2021 0 Aug 11, 2021 .13 Aug 12, 2021 0 Aug 13, 2021 .02 Aug 14, 2021 0 Aug 15, 2021 0 Aug 16, 2021 0 Aug 17, 2021 0 Aug 18, 2021 0 Aug 19, 2021 0 Site Visit Aug 20, 2021 0 Aug 21, 2021 .65 Aug 22, 2021 0 Aug 23, 2021 .13 Aug 24, 2021 .93 Aug 25, 2021 .20 Aug 26, 2021 0 Aug 27, 2021 1.85 Aug 28, 2021 .03 Aug 29, 2021 .75 Aug 30, 2021 T Exhibit 1 Field data sheet reference (if applicable): Wetland Hydrology from Aerial Imagery – Recording Form Project Name: Larkin Road Site Date: 8/19/2021 County: Hennepin County Investigator: W. Effertz Legal Description (T, R, S): S26 T119N R23W Summary Table Date Image Taken (M- D-Y) Image Source Climate Condition (wet, dry, normal)i Image Interpretation(s) Area: A Area: B Area: C Area: D Area: E Area: F Area: G Area: H Area: I 5/11/2020 Google Earth Normal NSS NSS NSS SS* SS* SS* NSS SS* SS* 7/1/2019 (Assumed) FSA Normal NV NV DO* DO* NV NV NSS DO* NSS 5/1/2018 Mn Geo Normal NSS NSS NSS SS* SS* NSS NSS NSS SS* 4/1/2012 Mn Geo Normal NSS NSS NSS NSS SS* NSS NSS SS* WS* 9/12/2010 FSA Normal NV AP* AP* NV WS* NV NSS SS* SS* 6/6/2006 Google Earth Normal NSS NSS NSS NSS SS* NSS SS* NSS NSS Normal Climate Condition Area: A Area: B Area: C Area: D Area: E Area: F Area: G Area: H Area: I Number of normal years 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Number with wet signatures 0 1 2 3 5 1 1 4 4 Percent w ith wet signatures 0% 17% 33% 50% 83% 17% 17% 67% 67% Date Image Taken (M-D- Y) Image Source Climate Condition (wet, dry, normal)i Image Interpretation(s) Area: J Area: K Area: L 5/11/2020 Google Earth Normal NSS NSS NSS 7/1/2019 (Assumed) FSA Normal NSS NV DO* 5/1/2018 Mn Geo Normal NSS NSS NSS 4/1/2012 Mn Geo Normal NSS NSS NSS 9/12/2010 FSA Normal DO* NV NV 6/6/2006 Google Earth Normal NSS SS* NSS Normal Climate Condition Area: J Area: K Area: L Number of normal years 6 6 6 Number with wet signatures 1 1 1 Percent w ith wet signatures 17% 17% 17% KEY WS - wetland signature SS - soil wetness signature CS - crop stress NC - not cropped AP - altered pattern NV - normal vegetative cover DO - drowned out SW - standing water NSS – no soil wetness signature Other labels or comments: • Use above key to label image interpretations. It is imperative that the reviewer read and understand the guidance associated with the use of these labels. If alternate labels are used, indicate in box above. • If less than five (5) images taken during normal climate conditions are available, use an equal number of images taken during wet and dry climate conditions and use as many images as you have available. Describe the results using this methodology in your report. _________________________________ i Use MN State Climatology website to determine climate condition when image was taken. Exhibit 1 Field data sheet reference (if applicable):____________ Wetland Determination from Aerial Imagery – Recording Form Project Name: Larkin Road Site Date: 8/19/2021 County: Hennepin County Investigator:W. Effertz Legal Description (T, R, S): S26 T119N R23W Use the Decision Matrix below to complete Table 1. Hydric Soils present1 Identified on NWI or other wetland map2 Percent with wet signatures from Exhibit 1 Field verification required3 Wetland? Yes Yes >50% No Yes Yes Yes 30-50% No Yes Yes Yes <30% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present Yes No >50% No Yes Yes No 30-50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present Yes No <30% No No No Yes >50% No Yes No Yes 30-50% No Yes No Yes <30% No No No No >50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present No No 30-50% Yes Yes, if other hydrology indicators present No No <30% No No 1 The presence of hydric soils can be determined from the “Hydric Rating by Map Unit Feature” under “Land Classifications” from the Web Soil Survey. “Not Hydric” is the only category considered to not have hydric soils. Field sampling for the presence/absence of hydric soil indicators can be used in lieu of the hydric rating if appropriately documented by providing completed field data sheets. 2 At minimum, the most updated NWI data available for the area must be reviewed for this step. Any and all other local or regional wetland maps that are publicly available should be reviewed. 3 Area should be reviewed in the field for the presence/absence of wetland hydrology indicators per the applicable 87 Manual Regional Supplement, including the D2 indicator (geomorphic position). Table 1. Area Hydric Soils Present Identified on NWI or other wetland map Percent with wet signatures from Exhibit 1 Other hydrology indicators present1 Wetland? A NO NO 0 33 33 N/A NO B NO NO 17 N/A NO C NO NO 33 NO NO D YES NO 50 NO NO E YES NO 83 YES Wetland 5 F YES NO 17 N/A NO G YES NO 17 N/A NO H YES NO 67 YES Wetland 6 I YES NO 67 YES Wetland 7 J YES NO 17 N/A NO K YES NO 17 N/A NO L YES YES 17 NO NO 1 Answer “N/A” if field verification is not required and was not conducted. Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : Google Earth - June, 2006 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : FSA - September, 2010 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : Mn Geo - April, 2012 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : Mn Geo - May, 2018 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : FSA - July, 2019 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas : Google Earth - May, 2020 (Normal Year) Larkin Road Site (KES 2021-166) Corcoran, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 350 Feet Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons Area A Area B Area C Area D Area E Area F Area G Area H Area I Area J Area L Area K BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit: City of Corcoran County: Hennepin Applicant Name: Jeff Minea – LMMK, LLC Applicant Representative: N/A Project Name: 20130 Larkin Road LGU Project No. (if any): Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 10/25/2021 Date of LGU Decision: 11/17/2021 Date this Notice was Sent: 11/30/2021 WCA Decision Type - check all that apply ☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase) ☐ No-Loss (8420.0415) ☐ Exemption (8420.0420) Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H Subpart: ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9 Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only) Total WCA Wetland Impact Area: Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits: NA ☐ Bank Credits: NA Bank Account Number(s): Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any) ☒ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☐ No TEP Recommendation LGU Decision ☐ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☒ Approved1 ☐ Denied List Conditions: Decision-Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other: Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify): 1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project- specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid. LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1. ☐ Attachment(s) (specify): ☒ Summary: Will Effertz of Kjolhaug submitted a completed wetland boundary/type application on behalf of Jeff Minea on October 25, 2021. The site was reviewed by Lucas Mueller (LGU), Paul Stewart (Hennepin County), and Will Effertz (Kjolhaug) on October 22, 2021. The TEP generally agreed with the wetland boundaries and types depicted in the Kjolhaug report but requested three changes after observing Wetlands 4 and 5 in the field. - Reduction of Wetland 4 to better fit the topography on the site - Extension of northern portion of Wetland 5 to better fit topography - Addition of ditch feature within Wetland 5 BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 2 Kjolhaug made the changes based on the TEPs recommendations and submitted a revised Existing Conditions figure on October 26, 2021. The LGU approves the updated Wetland Boundary/Type Application as submitted by Kjolhaug on 10/26/2021. 1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations. Attached Project Documents ☐ Site Location Map ☒ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): No Loss Application Appeals of LGU Decisions If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e-mail. The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why the decision is in error. Send to: Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 travis.germundson@state.mn.us Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision? ☐ Yes1 ☒ No 1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process. Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable) Notice Distribution (include name) Required on all notices: ☒ SWCD TEP Member: Stacey Lijewski , Hennepin SWCD ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Ben Carlson ☒ LGU TEP Member (if different than LGU contact): Kevin Mattson – City of Corcoran ☒ DNR Representative: Wes Saunders-Pearce ☒ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.: Elm Creek Watershed District ☒ Applicant: Jeff Minea ☒ Agent/Consultant: Will Effertz-Kjolhaug Optional or As Applicable: ☒ Corps of Engineers: ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only): ☐ Members of the Public (notice only): ☐ Other: Signature: Date: 11/30/2021 This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3. Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix C FEMA FIRMette National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 4/28/2022 at 4:23 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 93°33'26"W 45°5'40"N 93°32'48"W 45°5'14"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix D MDH Well Log Reports Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031104845 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed OLEK, RON 119 23 W 26 ABAABD 203 ft.203 ft.08/12/1976 Elevation 963 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20123 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 25 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY W/GRAVEL 25 45 MEDIUMGRAY GRAVEL & SAND 45 60 SOFTBROWN CLAY (GRAVELLY)60 78 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY (GRAVELLY)78 151 MEDIUMGRAY SHALE W/SANDROCK 151 162 MEDIUMGREEN SANDROCK 162 203 HARDGRN/WHT Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 162 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 4 203in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 162Open Hole From ft. To ft.203 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft.0 162 ft. cuttings ft. ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 104845 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless 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.55 Measureland surface 08/12/1976 ft.75 hrs.5 Pumping at 60 g.p.m. 50 feet Southwes 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. 5BA8 0.5 230 1296 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 CLARK, F. Remarks Jordan Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 151 Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System X Y456834 4993611 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031118887 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed ETZEL, GERG 119 23 W 26 ABAABC 197 ft.197 ft.02/26/1976 Elevation 961 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20137 50 CR HAMEL MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness TOP SOIL 0 7 SOFTBLACK CLAY 7 43 SOFTBLUE GRAVEL DIRTY 43 117 CLAY 117 140 SOFTBLUE CLAY & GRAVEL DIRTY 140 166 HARD ROCK 166 197 HARD Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 166 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 4 197in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 166Open Hole From ft. To ft.197 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 118887 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade RED JACKET X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.60 Measureland surface 02/20/1976 50 feet East 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. 02/26/1976 BV-75 0.5 230 84 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Pumarlo Well Co.27023 PUMARLO, F. Remarks St.Lawrence Formation Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence Formation Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence 166 Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System X Y456806 4993618 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031148105 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/16/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed SCHUTTE, PHIL 119 23 W 26 BAADDA 323 ft.323 ft.12/13/1977 Elevation 956 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20225 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 140 SANDROCK 140 232 SOFT ROCK 232 323 Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 233in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 4 323in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 233Open Hole From ft. To ft.323 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To well grouted, type unknown ft. ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 148105 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless 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.150 Measureland surface 12/13/1977 ft.160 hrs.3 Pumping at 70 g.p.m. feet Direction 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. 0.75 126 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Torgerson Well Co.27056 TORGERSON, S. Remarks Jordan-Tunnel City Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City Group Minnesota Geological Survey Tunnel City 140 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y456462 4993468 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Information from Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031168654 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/16/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed MELCHER, 119 23 W 26 DBBCDA 75 ft.75 ft.10/11/1979 Elevation 965 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid 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 20204 CIMARRON CI CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 18 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 18 45 MEDIUMBLUE CLAY & ROCK 45 68 MEDIUMRED/BRN SAND & GRAVEL 68 75 SOFTYELLOW Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 70in. To ft. lbs./ft. stainlessScreen?Make JOHNSONXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 2 12in.ft.705 75 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft.0 70 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 168654 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless 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.20 Measureland surface 10/11/1979 ft.20 hrs.2 Pumping at 20 g.p.m. 50 feet 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. 10/11/1979 SD1250 0.5 230 2042 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Mc Alpine's Well Co.27186 MCALPINE, G. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand +larger-yellow Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System X Y456568 4992687 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 01/01/1990Name on mailbox Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031192837 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/22/1992 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/24/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed ASEHLIMEN 119 23 W 26 CABAAD 231 ft.231 ft.05/03/1983 Elevation 994 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20417 LARKIN RD CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 20 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 20 70 MEDIUMBLUE SAND 70 83 M.HARDBROWN CLAY 83 89 MEDIUMBROWN SAND 89 106 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 106 182 MEDIUMBLUE SHALE & SANDROCK 182 185 HARDBLU/GRY SANDROCK AND 185 231 HARDGRAY Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 185 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 185in. To ft. 4 231in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 185Open Hole From ft. To ft.231 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 192837 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.80 Measureland surface 05/03/1983 feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes X Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT, G. Remarks Jordan Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence Formation Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence 182 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y456248 4992788 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 11/16/2015Tax Records Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031259743 County Hennepin Entry Date 04/22/2003 Quad Hamel Update Date 03/10/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed CORCORAN 119 23 W 23 DCCD null null Elevation 951 ft.Elev. Method Calc from DEM (USGS 7.5 min or equiv.)Drill Method Drill Fluid Address Use public supply/non-comm.-transient Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Stratigraphy Information Screen?MakeType Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 259743 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Minnesota Department of Health GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456563 4993728 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 07/05/2002Info/GPS from data Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031421780 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/24/1991 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed FEEHAN, JIM 119 23 W 26 BAAADB 315 ft.315 ft.06/12/1986 Elevation 972 ft.Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20305 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 36 MEDIUMYEL/BLU SAND & CLAY 36 90 MEDIUMGRY/BRN CLAY 90 140 HARDGRAY CLAY ROCKS SHALE 140 182 MEDIUMGRY/GRN SHALE 182 240 HARDGREEN SANDROCK 240 315 HARDWHITE Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 197 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6 197in. To ft. 4 315in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 197Open Hole From ft. To ft.315 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft.0 197 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 421780 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 Pitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX MCDONALD X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.55 Measureland surface 06/12/1986 ft.55 hrs.3 Pumping at 50 g.p.m. 75 feet East 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. 06/16/1986 18 KL 1 230 1884 Submersible Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Mc Alpine's Well Co.27186 MCALPINE, G. Remarks St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City/Mazomanie Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 182 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y456421 4993592 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 1031470764 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/22/1992 Quad Hamel Update Date 02/02/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed CHANNEL, ED 119 23 W 26 ABBAAA 254 ft.254 ft.11/16/1990 Elevation 957 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Threaded 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20209 50 CR CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 24 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 24 42 MEDIUMBLUE GRAVEL 42 68 M.HARDGRAY GRAVEL/ CLAY 68 89 M.HARDBROWN CLAY 89 150 MEDIUMGRAY CLAY 150 170 MEDIUMBLUE SHALE 170 200 MEDIUMBLU/GRY SANDROCK 200 254 HARDGRAY Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 204 20in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 204in. To ft. 4.2 254in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 204Open Hole From ft. To ft.254 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To cuttings ft. 204 ft. bentonite ft. 204 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 470764 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX RED JACKET X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.53 Measureland surface 11/16/1990 ft.70 hrs.3 Pumping at 40 g.p.m. 50 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. 11/20/1990 50CN1-0.5 230 1290 Submersible X Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT JR. A Remarks St.Lawrence Formation Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City Group Minnesota Geological Survey Tunnel City 170 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456652 4993619 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 08/22/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031479959 County Hennepin Entry Date 03/29/1993 Quad Hamel Update Date 12/18/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed PATNODE, 119 23 W 26 ABBBBB 252 ft.252 ft.07/13/1992 Elevation 973 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20239 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 28 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 28 76 MEDIUMBLUE CLAY 76 130 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 130 210 MEDIUMGRAY SANDSTONE 210 252 M.HARDGRY/GRN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 217 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 217in. To ft. 4 252in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 217Open Hole From ft. To ft.252 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To cuttings ft. 217 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 479959 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model 4X5.5 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade MYERS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 07/13/1992 ft.80 hrs.14 Pumping at 35 g.p.m. 50 feet Southwes 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. 08/02/1992 J712 0.75 230 1293 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 CORDELL, T. Remarks Tunnel City Group Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City Group Minnesota Geological Survey Tunnel City 210 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456480 4993615 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031511975 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/22/1992 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed MALJEWSKI, 119 23 W 26 ABABBC 230 ft.230 ft.03/05/1990 Elevation 958 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To 1 ft. Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20201 50 CR CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 27 MEDIUMYELLOW CLAY 27 42 BLUE GRAVEL 42 67 M.HARDGRAY GRAVEL / CLAY 67 89 M.HARDBROWN CLAY 89 149 MEDIUMGRAY SHALE 149 171 MEDIUMBLU/GRY SANDROCK/ SHALE 171 230 HARDBLU/GRY Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 176 11in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 176in. To ft. 4 230in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 176Open Hole From ft. To ft.230 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To cuttings ft. 76 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 511975 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 MONITORPitless adapter manufacturer Model 5 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX GOULD X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.55 Measureland surface 03/05/1990 ft.75 hrs.2.5 Pumping at 40 g.p.m. 50 feet South Direction Septic tank/drain field Type Well disinfected upon completion?Yes Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe Capacity Typftg.p. 03/13/1990 11AM07-412 0.75 1590 Submersible X Yes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT, A. Remarks Jordan-St.Lawrence Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 149 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456686 4993599 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031551597 County Hennepin Entry Date 12/10/1996 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 ACAACD 240 ft.240 ft.02/22/1995 Elevation 970 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use industrial Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20150 75TH AV N CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 31 BROWN SANDY CLAY 31 56 BROWN SAND & CLAY 56 70 SOFTGRAY SAND & GRAVEL 70 86 SOFTGRAY CLAY 86 135 GRAY FINE SAND 135 150 SOFTGRAY CLAY 150 168 BROWN FRANCONIA 168 180 SOFTLT. GRY FRANCONIA 180 240 GREEN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 180 10.7in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8.7 30in. To ft. 6.2 101in. To ft. 4 240in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 181Open Hole From ft. To ft.240 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To neat cement ft. 180 ft.2.3 Cubic yards Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 551597 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 BAKERPitless adapter manufacturer Model SNAPPY At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeXX GRUNDFOS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 02/22/1995 ft.85 hrs.3 Pumping at 30 g.p.m. 100 feet North 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. 03/01/1995 25S15-9 1.5 230 26105 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Renner E.H. Well 71015 PRAUGHT, V. Remarks St.Lawrence Formation Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 168 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456798 4993127 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031563093 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/08/1997 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed HICKS 119 23 W 26 AACCCA 253 ft.253 ft.09/17/1996 Elevation 978 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use industrial Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 7545 COMMERCE ST CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 17 SOFTYELLOW CLAY 17 36 MEDIUMGRAY GRAVEL 36 64 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY & GRAVEL 64 92 MEDIUMRED/BRN CLAY 92 103 MEDIUMGRAY CLAY HARD STICKY 103 172 BLUE SHALE 172 176 MEDIUMLT. BLU SANDSTONE / SHALE 176 205 MEDIUMBRN/TAN SHALE HARD STICKY 205 208 BROWN SANDSTONE / SHALE 208 212 MEDIUMBLUE SANDSTONE GREEN 212 237 HARDVARIED SANDSTONE PINK 237 253 HARDVARIED Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 180in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8 30in. To ft. 6.2 180in. To ft. 3 253in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 180Open Hole From ft. To ft.253 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 30 ft.4 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 563093 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model SU4X5.5 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.68 Measureland surface 09/17/1996 ft.68 hrs.2 Pumping at 60 g.p.m. 162 feet South 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. 10/17/1996 A 35-300 3 230 35126 Submersible XYes No Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well?Yes No Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Stevens Well Co.27194 NEMITZ, T. Remarks Jordan Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Tunnel City Group Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 172 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456903 4993251 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031592153 County Hennepin Entry Date 06/04/1998 Quad Hamel Update Date 12/18/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed STEINE, GENE 119 23 W 26 ABDBAD 83 ft.83 ft.02/03/1997 Elevation 976 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20125 AUGER AV CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 15 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY / GRAVEL 15 69 MEDIUMBROWN SAND / GRAVEL 69 83 SOFTBROWN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 73in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.2 83in. To ft. plasticScreen?Make CRESTLINEXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 18in.ft.7310 83 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To cuttings ft.40 73 ft. high solids bentonite ft. 40 ft.2.5 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 592153 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 MAASPitless adapter manufacturer Model JC-4 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX MEYERS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.55 Measureland surface 02/03/1997 ft.70 hrs.3 Pumping at 15 g.p.m. 75 feet South 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. 02/03/1997 J711P 0.75 230 1268 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 Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT, C. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand +larger-brown Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456764 4993385 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031594127 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/21/1997 Quad Hamel Update Date 09/08/2020 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 BDCDAC 195 ft.195 ft.03/07/1997 Elevation 981 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Sealed Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20400 LARKIN RD CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 30 SOFTBROWN CLAY 30 84 SOFTGRAY SILTY CLAY 84 130 MEDIUMRED CLAY 130 175 MEDIUMGRAY SANDSTONE / SHALE 175 193 MEDIUMWHT/BLU CLAY / ROCK 193 195 HARDRED Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 175in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8 30in. To ft. 6 195in. To ft. plasticScreen?MakeXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 10in.ft.17520 195 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) SEALED 07-19-2005 BY 30714 Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft. 30 ft.3 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 594127 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade RED JACKET X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 03/07/1997 ft.85 hrs.2 Pumping at 25 g.p.m. 50 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. 03/12/1997 0.75 230 10100 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 Bergerson-Caswell 27058 HOLMEN, G. Remarks Jordan Sandstone Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence Formation Minnesota Geological Survey Jordan-St. 175 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456230 4992897 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031597473 County Hennepin Entry Date 06/04/1998 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 ABDAAC 251 ft.251 ft.07/24/1997 Elevation 974 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20110 AUGER AV CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 8 BROWN SAND 8 13 CLAY 13 36 BROWN GRAVEL 36 68 CLAY W/ GRAVEL 68 95 BROWN STICKY CLAY 95 181 GRAY HARD & STICKY CLAY 181 192 RED/BLU SHALE W/ SANDSTONE 192 251 BLUE Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 233in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8.5 30in. To ft. 6.5 191in. To ft. 4.5 233in. To ft. 4 251in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 233Open Hole From ft. To ft.251 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft. 40 ft.3 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 597473 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade STA-RITE X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.70 Measureland surface 06/06/1997 ft. hrs. Pumping at 25 g.p.m. 50 feet North 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. 07/24/1997 0.75 120 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 Torgerson Well Co.27056 TORGERSON, R. Remarks St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey St.Lawrence- 192 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456843 4993385 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031607761 County Hennepin Entry Date 08/03/1998 Quad Hamel Update Date 12/18/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed CHRISTOPHER, 119 23 W 26 ABADBA 178 ft.178 ft.11/15/1997 Elevation 965 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20175 50 CR CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 59 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 59 76 SOFTGRAY CLAY 76 140 MEDIUMBROWN SAND 140 178 SOFTBROWN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 158in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 178in. To ft. plasticScreen?Make CRESTLINEXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 15in.ft.15810 178 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft. 35 ft.2 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 607761 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model SAU45.5 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX MEYERS X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 11/15/1997 ft.120 hrs.2 Pumping at 35 g.p.m. 50 feet South 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. 11/15/1997 3NFL7-12 0.75 230 12120 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 Ruppert & Son 27086 RUPPERT, C. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand-brown Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456819 4993510 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031638346 County Hennepin Entry Date 07/19/2000 Quad Hamel Update Date 12/18/2014 Quad ID 121D Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed PATNODE, TOM 119 23 W 26 ABBBBB 167 ft.167 ft.12/30/1999 Elevation 974 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?Yes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint C/W 20239 50 CR CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 86 MEDIUMBROWN SAND 86 94 SOFTBROWN CLAY/ GRAVEL 94 155 MEDIUMGRAY SAND/GRAVEL 155 167 SOFTBROWN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 157 2in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 167in. To ft. plasticScreen?Make BIG FOOTXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 15in.ft.15710 167 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft.0 40 ft.4 Sacks cuttings ft.40 157 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 638346 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 MAASSPitless adapter manufacturer Model JC-4 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX STA RITE X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.64 Measureland surface 12/30/1999 ft.130 hrs.3 Pumping at 40 g.p.m. 50 feet South 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. 01/11/2000 1 230 12100 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 A. Ruppert Well 30714 RUPPERT, C. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand +larger-brown Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456472 4993615 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031728690 County Hennepin Entry Date 01/02/2007 Quad Hamel Update Date 02/04/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date 07/24/2006 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 BDCACD 187 ft.187 ft.09/21/2005 Elevation 979 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To WeldedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20410 LARKIN RD CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 24 MEDIUMBROWN CLAY 24 146 MEDIUMGRAY ROCKY CLAY 146 164 MEDIUMGRAY SAND & ROCK 164 187 SOFTVARIED Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 167 0in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 8.7 20in. To ft. 6.2 187in. To ft. plasticScreen?MakeXType Diameter Slot/Gauze Length Set 4 10in.ft. 187 ft.ft. 4 15in.ft.16720 ft.ft. Open Hole From ft. To ft. Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 50 ft.4 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 728690 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade RED JACKET X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 09/15/2005 ft.150 hrs.2 Pumping at 30 g.p.m. 50 feet Northeas 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. 09/21/2006 1.5 220 20100 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 Bergerson Caswell, Inc. 1767 LESTER, T. Remarks Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock sand +larger Minnesota Geological Survey Quat. buried GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456207 4992945 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031728994 County Hennepin Entry Date Quad Hamel Update Date 11/05/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date 09/26/2005 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 119 23 W 26 BDCDAB 250 ft.250 ft.07/19/2005 Elevation 980 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Address Use domestic Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To Casing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20400 LARKIN RD CORCORAN MN 55340 Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 32 SOFTBROWN CLAY & GRAVEL 32 81 SOFTGRAY CLAY & GRAVEL 81 130 MEDIUMRED CLAY 130 178 MEDIUMGRAY SANDROCK / SHALE 178 250 MEDIUMGREEN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 186 0in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 186in. To ft. 4.5 250in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 186Open Hole From ft. To ft.250 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To high solids bentonite ft.0 40 ft.3 Sacks cuttings ft.40 166 ft. neat cement ft.166 186 ft. Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 728994 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 MAASSPitless adapter manufacturer Model JC-4 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above gradeX STA RITE X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.60 Measureland surface 07/19/2005 ft.150 hrs.3 Pumping at 20 g.p.m. 50 feet South 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. 07/19/2005 0.75 230 12100 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 A. Ruppert Well 30714 RUPPERT, C. Remarks Jordan-Tunnel City Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock Jordan-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey Jordan-Tunnel 178 GPS SA Off (averaged) (15 meters) System X Y456224 4992902 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 09/05/2014Address verification Angled Drill Hole Minnesota Unique Well Number MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031755332 County Hennepin Entry Date 05/14/2008 Quad Hamel Update Date 11/24/2015 Quad ID 121D Received Date 04/22/2008 Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed GAZELLE 119 23 W 26 ABDDAB 252 ft.252 ft.01/15/2008 Elevation 975 ft.Elev. Method LiDAR 1m DEM (MNDNR)Drill Method Non-specified Rotary Drill Fluid Qwik gel Address Use industrial Status Active Well Hydrofractured?XYes No From To ThreadedCasing Type Single casing No X Above/BelowYesDrive Shoe? Joint Well 20115 AUGER AV CORCORAN MN Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness CLAY 0 16 YELLOW CLAY 16 34 GRAY SAND / GRAVEL 34 52 ORANGE GRAVEL W/ CLAY 52 106 GRAY CLAY 106 162 BROWN SHALE / SILTSTONE 162 209 BRN/GRN SILTSTONE 209 252 BRN/GRN Stratigraphy Information Casing Diameter Weight 4 172in. To ft. lbs./ft. Hole Diameter 6.7 172in. To ft. 4 252in. To ft. Screen?MakeType 172Open Hole From ft. To ft.252 Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Material FromAmount To bentonite ft. 42 ft.4 Sacks Wellhead Completion Pump Nearest Known Source of Contamination Abandoned Variance Well Contractor Minnesota Well Index Report 755332 HE-01205-15 Printed on 04/28/2022 WHITEWATERPitless adapter manufacturer Model SU4 At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Casing Protection 12 in. above grade AY MCDONALD X Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? Grouting Information Well Grouted?Yes No Not Specified No ft.65 Measureland surface 12/28/2007 ft. hrs. Pumping at 75 g.p.m. 55 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. 12/29/2007 23075D3SJL 0.75 230 10105 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 TL Stevens Well Co., Inc. 1838 STEVENS, J. Remarks Jordan-St.Lawrence Miscellaneous Last Strat Aquifer Depth to Bedrock Located by Locate Method First Bedrock St.Lawrence-Tunnel City Minnesota Geological Survey Jordan-Tunnel 162 Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System X Y456839 4993303 ft UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters Unique Number Verification Input Date 11/16/2015Address verification Angled Drill Hole Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix E Feasibility Study Report Corcoran Farms Business Park Feasibility Study May 2022 Prepared for: City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY Table of Contents MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 i Table of Contents CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDYTable of ContentsMAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project..........................................................................2.2 Table 2: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................2.3 Table 3: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................................2.4 Table 4: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.5 Table 5: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.5 Table 6: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.6 Table 7: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.6 Table 8: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results.......................................................................2.6 Table 9: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control............................................................................................................................................2.7 Table 10: 8-Inch Scenario Results, without 12-Inch along Golf Course...................................................3.3 Table 11: 12-Inch Scenario Results, without 12-Inch along Golf Course..................................................3.4 Table 12: 8-Inch Scenario Results, with 12-Inch along Golf Course.........................................................3.4 Table 13: 12-Inch Scenario Results, with 12-Inch along Golf Course.......................................................3.5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Plan Figure 2: Water System Layout Figure 3: Scenario 2B Fire Flow Figure 4: Scenario 2B Pressure Figure 5: Scenario 5B Fire Flow Figure 6: Scenario 5B Pressure Figure 7: Scenario 6B Fire Flow Figure 8: Sewer Layout LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plans Appendix B Stormwater Guidelines CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 1.0 Introduction MAY 2022 1.1 INTRODUCTION Lee and Associates is proposing to construct a business park consisting of five buildings totaling over 700,000 square feet. The site is consistent with the City’s Master Sewer and Water Plans and will develop approximately 70-acres in Southeast Corcoran that is currently agricultural. The main access will be on Larkin Road. The site layout is somewhat affected by a 50-foot gas-line easement crosses the site east/west along the southern portion of the property. This Feasibility Study is the basis for identifying infrastructure improvements to support the development and City infrastructure. The Feasibility Study is incorporated into an ongoing Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.1 TRANSPORTATION 2.1 BACKGROUND This study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: · CSAH 10/CR 116 · CSAH 10/CSAH 50 · CR 116/Larkin Road · Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS For purpose of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed development is assumed to consist of the following uses: · Building A – 15,423 square feet of office and 61,693 square feet of warehouse · Building B – 23,892 square feet of office and 95,570 square feet of warehouse · Building C – 33,703 square feet of office and 134,814 square feet of warehouse · Building D – 19,411 square feet of office and 77,644 square feet of warehouse · Building E – 52,849 square feet of office and 211,397 square feet of warehouse 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is bounded by Larkin Road on the south, existing residential uses on the west and north, and existing commercial uses on the east. Near the site location, Larkin Road is a two-lane rural section roadway. CSAH 10, CSAH 50, and CR 116 are two lane roadways with turn lanes and traffic signal control at major intersections. Blue Bonnet Drive is a local two-lane roadway. Existing conditions near the proposed project location are described below. CSAH 10/CR 116 - This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. CSAH 10/CSAH 50 - This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the eastbound approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through lane. The southbound approach provides one shared lane for left turn and through movements. CR 116/Larkin Road - This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn/through lane and one through/right turn bypass lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.2 Weekday traffic volume data was recorded at the existing intersections in March, 2022. Existing traffic volume data is presented later in this report. 2.4 TRAFFIC FORECASTS To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the years 2027 and 2040. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: · 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. · 2027 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.5 percent per year to determine 2027 No-Build volumes. The 2.5 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on traffic forecast information presented in the 2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan. · 2027 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2027 No-Build volumes to determine 2027 Build volumes. · 2040 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.5 percent per year to determine 2040 No-Build volumes. The 2.5 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on traffic forecast information presented in the 2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan. · 2040 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2040 No-Build volumes to determine 2040 Build volumes. The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Office 145,278 SF 194 27 221 35 174 209 1575 Warehouse 581,118 SF 76 23 99 29 76 105 497 Totals 270 50 320 64 250 314 2072 Note: SF=square feet Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.3 The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are described below: · 30 percent to/from the east on CSAH 10 · 30 percent to/from the south on CR 116 · 20 percent to/from the north on CR 116 · 10 percent to/from the west on CSAH 10 · 10 percent to/from the west on Larkin Road Development trips from Table 1 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant peak hour volumes are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes CSAH 10/CR 116 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 19 205 93 16 65 37 22 67 26 56 269 30 2027 No-Build 21 232 105 18 74 42 25 76 29 63 304 34 2027 Build 21 232 131 23 74 42 29 86 31 63 358 34 2040 No-Build 30 320 145 25 101 58 34 104 41 87 420 47 2040 Build 30 320 171 30 101 58 38 114 43 87 474 47 CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 1 - 167 - - - 72 40 - - 191 1 2027 No-Build 1 - 189 - - - 81 45 - - 216 1 2027 Build 1 - 189 - - - 81 49 - - 242 1 2040 No-Build 2 - 260 - - - 112 62 - - 298 2 2040 Build 2 - 260 - - - 112 66 - - 324 2 CR 116/Larkin Road EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 10 17 4 20 4 10 1 103 9 0 354 7 2027 No-Build 11 19 5 23 5 11 1 117 10 0 401 8 2027 Build 27 33 20 23 81 11 82 117 10 0 401 93 2040 No-Build 16 27 6 31 6 16 2 161 14 0 552 11 2040 Build 32 41 21 31 82 16 83 161 14 0 552 96 Larkin Rd/Blue Bonnet Dr/access EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing - 31 0 0 12 - 0 - 0 - - - 2027 No-Build - 35 0 0 14 - 0 - 0 - - - 2027 Build 23 35 0 0 14 200 0 0 0 92 0 11 2040 No-Build - 48 0 0 19 - 0 - 0 - - - 2040 Build 23 48 0 0 19 200 0 0 0 92 0 11 CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.4 Table 3: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes CSAH 10/CR 116 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 35 106 32 19 251 49 105 336 15 34 83 35 2027 No-Build 40 120 36 21 284 55 119 380 17 38 94 40 2027 Build 40 120 41 23 284 55 143 430 22 38 107 40 2040 No-Build 55 165 50 30 391 76 164 524 23 53 129 55 2040 Build 55 165 55 32 391 76 188 574 28 53 142 55 CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 6 - 101 - - - 213 202 - - 53 4 2027 No-Build 7 - 114 - - - 241 229 - - 60 5 2027 Build 7 - 114 - - - 241 253 - - 65 5 2040 No-Build 9 - 158 - - - 332 315 - - 83 6 2040 Build 9 - 158 - - - 332 339 - - 88 6 CR 116/Larkin Road EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 8 6 5 12 11 4 6 417 26 7 126 16 2027 No-Build 9 7 6 14 12 5 7 472 29 8 143 18 2027 Build 88 77 81 14 30 5 27 472 29 8 143 38 2040 No-Build 12 9 8 19 17 6 9 650 41 11 197 25 2040 Build 91 79 83 19 35 6 29 650 41 11 197 45 Larkin Rd/Blue Bonnet Dr/access EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing - 19 0 0 33 - 0 - 0 - - - 2027 No-Build - 21 0 0 37 - 0 - 0 - - - 2027 Build 6 21 0 0 37 58 0 0 0 224 0 26 2040 No-Build - 30 0 0 51 - 0 - 0 - - - 2040 Build 6 30 0 0 51 58 0 0 0 224 0 26 2.5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: · Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. · Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.5 · Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. · Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. · Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. · Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. The LOS results for the study intersections are presented below. 2022 Existing Table 4: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal B/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2027 No-Build Table 5: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.6 2027 Build Table 6: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/D A/D Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr/access NB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2040 No-Build Table 7: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/C A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2040 Build Table 8: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop B/F C/F Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr/access NB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. The eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic Signal Warrants at CR 116/Larkin Road As shown above, the eastbound movements operate at LOS F during the 2040 Build scenarios at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this location. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.7 The traffic forecasts for the 2027 Build and 2040 Build scenarios were used to analyze the peak hour and four-hour traffic signal warrants. These volumes include trips from the proposed project as well as other background traffic. The traffic volume forecasts were used to determine if specific warrants are satisfied based on published criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) were assessed. Since the posted speed limits on CR 116 is 50 mph, the analyses presented consider reductions for speeds greater than 40 mph. The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. Intersection Operations at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control A potential mitigation measure for the operational issues shown at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection is traffic signal control. The updated intersection operation results assuming traffic signal control are shown below. Table 9: Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control Scenario AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS 2027 Build B/B B/B 2040 Build B/C B/C Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All movements and the overall intersection operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both scenarios. 2.6 FINDINGS · The proposed development is expected to generate 320 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 314 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,072 trips daily. · All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the 2022, 2027 No-Build, 2027 Build, and 2040 No-Build scenarios. Under the 2040 Build scenario, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better. · The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.0 Transportation MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 2.8 · Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o CSAH 10/CR 116 Short term – No improvements needed. Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 10/CSAH 50 Short term – No improvements needed. Long term – No improvements needed. o CR 116/Larkin Road Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. o Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access · Short term – Intersection should be constructed as required per City practice for new development projects. Construct westbound left turn land and westbound right turn lane. Construct eastbound left turn lane. Construct southbound approach with a dedicated left turn land and a through/right turn lane. Long term – Construct eastbound right turn lane with additional development to the south. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.1 WATER 3.1 BACKGROUND The water supply for the Corcoran Farms Business Park development will be the same as planned for all of SE Corcoran. Under a contract to provide water service, Maple Grove will continue to supply SE Corcoran with up to a peak of 5 million gallons per day (MGD). Multiple service options were evaluated, each consisting of varying watermain layouts and sizes within and outside of the development. Evaluations were conducted using the computer modeling software WaterCAD, which simulates the water system’s response to average and peak demands and firefighting scenarios. Each condition creates different responses in the water system. The modeling results help to identify and evaluate the various options for supplying water to the Corcoran Farms Business Park development. It is noted that the City is requesting that the developer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well within Corcoran Farms Business Park (approximately 110 by 110 feet in size). Also, as discussed in the SE Corcoran water supply analysis draft report (Stantec draft report dated April 5, 2022), this may be a good location for one of the three initial test wells recommended for long-term supply within SE Corcoran. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed municipal well parcel within the development. Proposed Municipal Well Parcel CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.2 3.2 MODEL AND WATER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS A map of the pipe network that was used for this modeling work is shown on Figure 2. The water system performance was evaluated just before and after the point at which the future water tower and booster station would be constructed. Per the most recent SE Corcoran Water Supply Analysis, a 1-million-gallon (MG) water tower would be constructed near the point at which the maximum day demand (MDD) reaches 1,250 gpm (1.8 MGD). This was the total demand placed on the modeled pipe network used for this study. The water tower was assumed to be constructed somewhere just east of the downtown area, and the booster station would be constructed concurrently with the tower at a location just inside Corcoran at the Maple Grove connection (i.e., near node J-C2 as shown on Figure 2). For modeling purposes, the hydraulic grade line at the Maple Grove Connection was assumed to be 1098 ft MSL (as confirmed by a review of the Maple Grove WaterCAD model), and for scenarios including the water tower, the water level within the tank was assumed to be 1146 ft MSL (i.e., three-quarters full). The southern boundary of Corcoran Farms Business Park coincides with the route of a planned 16-inch trunk main that is a critical part of the long-term SE water supply system. This evaluation considers the construction of this trunk water main concurrent with this development, which provides the opportunity to open trench this pipe along the edge of the business park, thus avoiding future disturbance. This alternative is evaluated in Scenarios 3, 6 and 9. Scenarios 1, 4 and 7 evaluate fire flow and pressures within the development without any looping (connecting to the 12-inch near County Road 50), and Scenarios 2, 5 and 8 evaluate the looping proposed by the developer, between the existing 12-inch south of County Road 50 and the 8-inch on 75th Ave North. Additionally, sub-scenarios were evaluated to determine the effect of different watermain diameters within the development (scenarios denoted with the suffix “a” included all 8-inch pipes within the development and those denoted with the suffix “b” include a 12-inch pipe bisecting the development from north to south), and the effect of the planned 12-inch trunk watermain along the north side of Shamrock Golf Course (along Larkin Rd), which will provide an additional distribution pipe between the Maple Grove connection and the Western Water Loop along County Road 116 (scenarios 4-6 were run with the 12-inch connection turned on in the model, but without the water tower and booster station). For commercial/industrial areas, a target fire flow of 3,000 gpm (3-hour duration) during the maximum day was assumed. New commercial/industrial buildings are assumed to be sprinklered and, as such, most of these buildings will ultimately have a lower acceptable target. However, 3,000 gpm is deemed a reasonable overall target, and allows for some conservatism in this safety-driven parameter. 3.3 SCENARIOS 1-3: WITHOUT PLANNED 12-INCH ALONG NORTH SIDE OF SHAMROCK GOLF COURSE All scenarios described in this section were performed with the planned 12-inch main along Larkin between J-C15 and J-C11 turned off, reflecting current conditions. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.3 Scenarios 1a, 2a, and 3a evaluated the watermain looping within the development, with all three scenarios assuming an 8-inch main connecting to the 12-inch watermain near County Road 50 (J-D4) and extending to the southern edge of the development at the intersection of Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr (Node J-L4). Scenario 1a included no looped piping (a single dead-end pipe), while Scenario 2a included an 8-inch loop to the existing 8-inch stub on 75th Ave N (J-D9) and Scenario 3a included the 16- inch loop along Larkin Rd to connect J-L4 to the 16-inch main on County Road 116 (J-C11). The results for these scenarios are shown in Table 10. Table 10: 8-Inch Scenario Results, without 12-Inch along Golf Course Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 1a Scenario 2a Scenario 3a Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) J-D4 955 59.3 1,998 59.3 1,978 59.3 1,951 J-D9 975 50.6 1,864 50.6 1,906 50.6 1,887 J-L1 980 48.4 1,192 48.4 1,685 48.4 1,856 J-L2 968 53.6 1,155 53.6 1,767 53.6 1,891 J-L3 972 51.9 1,042 51.9 1,768 51.9 1,862 J-L4 970 52.8 997 52.8 1,548 52.7 1,827 As shown in Table 10, maximum day pressures are within the ideal range of 45-60 psi. Modeling also indicates that during the peak hour (of the maximum day, a condition of rare occurrence), pressures in the downtown area fall by approximately 7-8 psi. This means the lowest expected pressure within Corcoran Farms Business Park for these scenarios is approximately 42 psi, which is above the recommended minimum of 35 psi. However, fire flows are below the 3,000-gpm target, even for the two looped scenarios. Note that J-D4, which is representative of most of the existing downtown nodes, is capped at approximately 2,000 gpm fire flow. Scenarios 1b, 2b, and 3b were the same as 1a, 2a, and 3a except that the model assumed 12-inch main instead of 8-inch main bisecting the development from J-D4 to J-L4. Connecting loops retained the same diameter pipe as before (8-inch between J-L3 and J-D9, and 16-inch between J-L4 and J-C11). The results for these scenarios are shown in Table 11. Figures 3 and 4 show the fire flow and pressure results, respectively, for Scenario 2b. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.4 Table 11: 12-Inch Scenario Results, without 12-Inch along Golf Course Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 1b Scenario 2b Scenario 3b Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) J-D4 955 59.3 1,998 59.3 1,973 59.2 1,928 J-D9 975 50.6 1,864 50.6 1,918 50.6 1,903 J-L1 980 48.4 1,975 48.4 1,964 48.4 1,909 J-L2 968 53.6 1,975 53.6 1,962 53.6 1,900 J-L3 972 51.9 1,951 51.9 1,961 51.9 1,887 J-L4 970 52.8 1,927 52.8 1,961 52.7 1,877 As shown in Table 11, the 12-inch improved fire flow for the stubbed scenario (1a vs. 1b), but fire flows remain below the 3,000-gpm target for all scenarios. It is noted that most of the existing downtown nodes are capped at approximately 2,000 gpm fire flow, indicating a potential bottleneck within the system in conveying high flows from the Maple Grove connection to this general area within Corcoran. 3.4 SCENARIOS 4-6: WITH PLANNED 12-INCH ALONG NORTH SIDE OF SHAMROCK GOLF COURSE All scenarios described in this section were performed with the planned 12-inch main along Larkin between J-C15 and J-C11 turned on, reflecting planned future conditions. Given the results of Scenarios 1-3, Scenarios 4-6 were evaluated to see if fire flows in the downtown area, including the Corcoran Farms Business Park, could be improved to meet the 3,000-gpm target. Scenarios 4a, 5a, and 6a were the same as 1a, 2a, and 3a except for the addition of the 12-inch along the north side of the golf course. All mains within Corcoran Farms Business Park were assumed to be 8- inch. The results for these scenarios are shown in Table 12. Table 12: 8-Inch Scenario Results, with 12-Inch along Golf Course Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 4a Scenario 5a Scenario 6a Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) J-D4 955 60.6 3,161 60.6 3,555 60.6 3,603 J-D9 975 52 2,564 51.9 2,914 52 2,578 J-L1 980 49.7 1,337 49.8 2,058 49.8 2,425 J-L2 968 54.9 1,273 55 2,194 55 2,719 J-L3 972 53.2 1,136 53.2 2,138 53.3 3,080 J-L4 970 54.1 1,080 54.1 1,798 54.1 3,296 CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.5 As shown in Table 12, maximum day pressures are marginally improved over those of Scenarios 1-3, improving by about 1 psi at all nodes. Modeling also indicates that during the peak hour (of the maximum day), pressures in the downtown area fall by approximately 3-4 psi. This means the lowest expected pressure within the Corcoran Farms Business Park for these scenarios is approximately 47 psi, which is above the recommended minimum of 35 psi. More importantly, fire flows in the downtown area approach or exceed the 3,000-gpm target. However, nodes within the Corcoran Farms Business Park remain short of the target, even for the looped scenarios (e.g., 2,425 gpm at J-L1 for Scenario 6a). This suggests that 8-inch watermain within the development is not sufficient to meet target fire flow prior to the construction of the water tower. Scenarios 4b, 5b, and 6b were the same as 4a, 5a, and 6a except that the model assumed 12-inch main instead of 8-inch main bisecting the development from J-D4 to J-L4. The results for these scenarios are shown in Table 13. Figures 5 and 6 show the fire flow and pressure results, respectively, for Scenario 5b. Figure 7 shows the fire flow results for Scenario 6b. Table 13: 12-Inch Scenario Results, with 12-Inch along Golf Course Node Elevation (ft MSL) Scenario 4b Scenario 5b Scenario 6b Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) Pressure (psi) Fire Flow (gpm) J-D4 955 60.6 3,162 60.6 3,449 60.6 3,465 J-D9 975 52 2,564 51.9 3,043 52 2,584 J-L1 980 49.8 2,492 49.8 2,954 49.8 3,382 J-L2 968 54.9 2,492 55 2,992 55 3,366 J-L3 972 53.2 2,373 53.2 2,979 53.3 3,353 J-L4 970 54.1 2,322 54.1 2,860 54.1 3,344 As shown in Table 13, the results of Scenario 4b indicate that a non-looped distribution system within the development would not be acceptable from a fire flow perspective, in addition to water quality concerns associated with long dead ends. However, fire flow results for Scenarios 5b and 6b effectively meet or exceed the 3,000-gpm target for most nodes except those at dead end nodes (i.e., J-L4 for Scenario 5b and J-D9 for Scenario 6b). Note that in the case of J-L4, this dead-end stub would ultimately be connected to the planned trunk watermain along Larkin Rd. Comparing the results of Scenario 2b and Scenario 5b demonstrates the effect of the 12-inch main along the northern edge of Shamrock Golf Course – its construction would greatly improve available fire flows in and around downtown Corcoran, including Corcoran Farms Business Park. Although both looping options can provide the desired 3,000 gpm fire flow within the development once the 12-inch is installed along the golf course, Scenario 6b (with the 16-inch along Larkin Rd) provides approximately 400-500 gpm additional fire flow at each node within the business park. An additional benefit to this alternative is that it would avoid future disturbance along the edge of the business park when this trunk main ultimately needs to be constructed to serve the greater SE Corcoran water system. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.6 3.5 SCENARIOS 7-9: POST-TOWER AND BOOSTER STATION For scenarios 7-9, the same in-development looping and pipe sizing scenarios were modeled as described above, but with the water tower and booster station, along with the 12-inch main along Larkin between J-C15 and J-C11, turned on. These scenarios represent the planned future conditions just after the construction of SE Corcoran’s first water tower, which is expected once total system MDD reaches approximately 1.8 MGD. For all scenarios with the water tower and booster station on, pressures within Corcoran Farms Business Park range from 72-80 psi on the maximum day. Apart from the non-looped scenarios with 8-inch dead ends, available fire flow exceeded the 3,000-gpm target for all nodes within downtown, including Corcoran Farms Business Park. These results indicate that adding the currently planned 1 MG tower with a hydraulic grade line of 1,156 feet (with the accompanying booster station) will provide acceptable results for all pressure and fire flow scenarios that were evaluated, with the exception of non-looped 8-inch dead ends. 3.6 FINDINGS The following key findings and recommendation are made: · Looping of watermain within the development is required; for example, by looping between the existing 12-inch south of County Road 50 and the 8-inch on 75th Ave North, such as shown on the developer’s submitted utility plan, or by extending the planned 16-inch trunk watermain from County Road 116 along Larkin Rd and connecting to the development at the Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr intersection. · While fire flow within the business park is not necessarily a driver for installing the 16-inch main along Larkin Rd, the development presents an opportunity to open trench this pipe (which is a critical part of the long-term SE water supply system) now to avoid future disturbance. · If the planned 16-inch trunk main along Larkin Rd is not constructed concurrently with this development, provide an easement for future construction of this trunk watermain along the development boundary on Larkin Rd. · 12-inch watermain within the development is required, running north-south through the development between connection to the 12-inch near County Road 50 and the connection (or stub) to the planned 16-inch trunk main at the intersection of Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr. · Construction of the planned 12-inch trunk watermain along the north side of Shamrock Golf Course (along Larkin Rd) is critical to ensure future target fire flows of 3,000 gpm can be provided to downtown areas including Corcoran Farms Business Park. It is assumed that this pipe will be constructed prior to the first water tower in SE Corcoran, however timing is uncertain. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 3.0 Water MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 3.7 · It is noted that the City is requesting that the developer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well within Corcoran Farms Business Park (approximately 110 by 110 feet in size). Also, as discussed in the SE Corcoran Water Supply Analysis draft report, this may be a good location for one of the three initial test wells recommended for long-term supply within SE Corcoran. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 4.0 Sewer MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 4.1 SEWER 4.1 SEWER LAYOUT Sewer service for the proposed development will be via a tie-in to the existing 18-inch trunk sewer located near the northeast corner of the parcel. In accordance with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the developer will construct 18-inch sewer southward through the development to the southern parcel line along Larkin Road (Figure 8). Utilizing the two sewer slopes shown on Figure 8 should yield a sewer invert at Larkin Road that meets the target invert in the Comprehensive Plan (942.5). In addition to the primary 18-inch trunk sewer, two sewer stubs must also be constructed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 8). A 12-inch trunk sewer stub to the west parcel line must be constructed at approximately the same installation depth as the 18-inch sewer (i.e., as deep as possible, allowing for proper tie-in at the tee manhole). This will provide service to new developments located to the west of this development. An 8-inch sewer lateral to the southeast corner of the parcel must also be constructed to serve the parcels located further east (e.g., future connection of Larkin Road parcels). The sewer invert at the southeast corner should be 950.0 (approximately 20-foot depth), and a drop manhole may be utilized at the tie-in to the 18-inch trunk sewer, as appropriate. In order to avoid overloading the City’s existing and planned wastewater infrastructure, the developer must limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day). This is the volume of wastewater that has been planned for in the MCES-approved Comprehensive Plan. This is particularly important given that the Rush Creek Reserve development (located north of this proposed development and downstream in the local sewershed) is in the process of building a new wastewater lift station to replace the previously used lift station on County Road 10. The new lift station is adequately sized to accommodate planned wastewater flows from this and other developments, but any unplanned increase could potentially exceed this lift station’s design capacity. Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. Where both sewer and potable water utilities are being installed in parallel, the easements must be wide enough to accommodate the required separation distance between sewer and potable water lines. Upsize credits will apply for the trunk sewer segments that are constructed by the developer (12- and 18- inch sewer). 4.2 FINDINGS The following key findings and recommendations are made: · Developer to construct the 18-inch trunk sewer as shown on Figure 8. · Developer to construct the 12-inch trunk sewer stub to the west and the 8-inch lateral sewer stub to the east as shown on Figure 1. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 4.0 Sewer MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 4.2 · Developer must limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day). · Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. · Upsize credits will apply for the trunk sewer segments that are constructed by the developer (12- and 18-inch sewer). · Developer shall provide stubs to adjacent parcels. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 5.0 Water Resources MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 5.1 WATER RESOURCES 5.1 REGULATORY OVERVIEW Stormwater management regulations in the proposed project area would be guided or directed by Corcoran’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (Local Plan) the City’s Guidelines, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and MS4 requirements. Each of these documents has a larger regulatory context: The Local Plan reflects the goals, policies and rules of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission’s Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (Commission’s WMP). The SWPPP is a requirement of the City’s stormwater permit, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The MS4 permit is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which was reissued in October of 2021. Among other goals, both documents include plans to meet pollutant load reductions calculated in the Elm Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. TMDL studies are required for surface waters that are designated as impaired – in other words, those that do not meet one or more state water quality standards. City guidelines lay out the required modeling parameters, preferred BMPs and some construction materials. City approval is required prior to application for the WMO approval process. Further City review occurs with construction plan approval process. 5.2 WATERSHED SETTING AND LAND USE The proposed development is situated in the South Fork of Rush Creek watershed, and drains east, northwest and eventually north towards the City Park and the South Fork of Rush Creek. Existing land use in the proposed development is agricultural and topography is gently rolling/flat with a maximum topography difference of approximately 25 feet. The urbanizing MUSA areas undergo changes from agricultural to non-agricultural land use that presents challenges where land use will change from row crops to commercial/industrial. 5.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The development on the parcel was agricultural use of the land would cease, replaced by both pervious open space and impervious surfaces that will impact stormwater runoff. Although elimination of agriculture can benefit water quality by reducing export of nutrients and sediments through onsite ponding and filtration (Best Management Practices or BMPs), construction of additional impervious surfaces, such as the roads, driveways, rooftops, and sidewalks increase the volume to nearby surface waters. Turn lane improvements to HWY 55 and Pioneer Trail would also increase CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 5.0 Water Resources MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 5.2 impervious surface area and, like neighborhood roads and driveways, would require practices to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation is accomplished by aligning development plans with City requirements and WMO/MS4 stormwater regulations. Corcoran’s Local Plan, in agreement with the Commission’s WMP, requires that development plans over 1-acre disturbed area be submitted to the City and the Commission for review. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the developer’s plans for stormwater management during and after construction meet the Commission’s rules regarding the rate, volume and pollutant load of stormwater runoff, along with other rules regarding wetland alteration, erosion and sediment control and other aspects of surface water protection. The City focuses on rates of discharge, downstream impacts and long-term construction sustainability. This adherence to Commission rules on water quality (BMPs) is one of the strategies Corcoran has chosen to also meet its TMDL obligations to reduce nutrients. The implementation plan calls on Corcoran to apply these standards when land use changes, a strategy that is predicted to have the net result of improving, or not further degrading, the water quality of stormwater runoff. Stormwater modeling guidelines are in Appendix B and may be updated prior to development’s final construction plan approval. Complementing the Local Plan, Corcoran’s SWPPP requires plan review, construction site erosion and sediment control, and post-construction stormwater management. Construction site inspections by the City’s consultant will begin with land-disturbing activity and end with final stabilization of exposed soils and City acceptance of the development. After construction, the City would enter an agreement with tany developer’s common area association or similar group to ensure that stormwater Best Management Practices continue to function and are maintained as intended. 5.4 FINDINGS Onsite · Stormwater improvements are necessary within the development to meet City guidelines and in accordance with regulations of the WMO. · To move towards meeting load reduction goals, the City’s Local Surface Water Plan identifies that improvements to water resources will occur with development. · Ponding areas and limits will be closely reviewed for adjacent properties Offsite Offsite conveyance impacts for the development will be further explored as follows: · Drainage path along the north side of to ensure CR 50 conveyance is free flowing The City is exploring a stormwater fee that may be incorporated in 2022. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 6.0 Financing MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 6.1 FINANCING Financing options of the development necessary for infrastructure and to mitigate impacts typically follow the approach of: · On-site infrastructure is managed by the developer · Trunk sewer, water and potentially stormwater area charges are due at time of final plat. o Oversizing for sewer and water piping receive credit against the TLAC fees associated with piping, · Off-site projects are typically managed by the by City (engineering, bidding and construction management) through an escrow provided by developer. The financial package will be further detailed and negotiated as the project moves forward and culminates in the overall Developer Agreement with the overall preliminary plat approval which is updated for each phase of the development. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 7.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following infrastructure improvements are feasible and necessary to manage the development. These improvements are consistent with similar requirements for other developments in Corcoran. Transportation · The proposed development is expected to generate 320 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 314 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,072 trips daily. · All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the 2022, 2027 No-Build, 2027 Build, and 2040 No-Build scenarios. Under the 2040 Build scenario, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better. · The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. · Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o CSAH 10/CR 116 Short term – No improvements needed. Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 10/CSAH 50 Short term – No improvements needed. Long term – No improvements needed. o CR 116/Larkin Road Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. o Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access Short term – Intersection should be constructed as required per City practice for new development projects. Construct westbound left turn lane and westbound right turn lane. Construct eastbound left turn lane. Construct southbound approach with a dedicated left turn land and a through/right turn lane. Long term – Construct eastbound right turn lane with additional development to the south. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 7.2 Water The following key findings and recommendation are made: · Looping of watermain within the development is required; for example, by looping between the existing 12-inch south of County Road 50 and the 8-inch on 75th Ave North, such as shown on the developer’s submitted utility plan, or by extending the planned 16-inch trunk watermain from County Road 116 along Larkin Rd and connecting to the development at the Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr intersection. · While fire flow within the business park is not necessarily a driver for installing the 16-inch main along Larkin Rd, the development presents an opportunity to open trench this pipe (which is a critical part of the long-term SE water supply system) now to avoid future disturbance. · If the planned 16-inch trunk main along Larkin Rd is not constructed concurrently with this development, provide an easement for future construction of this trunk watermain along the development boundary on Larkin Rd. · 12-inch watermain within the development is required, running north-south through the development between connection to the 12-inch near County Road 50 and the connection (or stub) to the planned 16-inch trunk main at the intersection of Larkin Rd and Blue Bonnet Dr. · Construction of the planned 12-inch trunk watermain along the north side of Shamrock Golf Course (along Larkin Rd) is critical to ensure future target fire flows of 3,000 gpm can be provided to downtown areas including Corcoran Farms Business Park. It is assumed that this pipe will be constructed prior to the first water tower in SE Corcoran, however timing is uncertain. · It is noted that the City is requesting that the developer provide a parcel to the City for locating a future municipal well within Corcoran Farms Business Park (approximately 110 by 110 feet in size). Also, as discussed in the SE Corcoran Water Supply Analysis draft report, this may be a good location for one of the three initial test wells recommended for long-term supply within SE Corcoran. Sewer The following key findings and recommendations are made: · Developer to construct the 18-inch trunk sewer as shown on Figure 8. · Developer to construct the 12-inch trunk sewer stub to the west and the 8-inch lateral sewer stub to the east as shown on Figure 1. · Developer must limit the total wastewater volume from all lots combined to not more than 0.064 mgd (average day). · Permanent easements for the trunk and lateral sewers will be dedicated to the City. CORCORAN FARMS PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations MAY 2022 Project Number 227704868 7.3 · Upsize credits will apply for the trunk sewer segments that are constructed by the developer (12- and 18-inch sewer). · Developer shall provide stubs to adjacent parcels Water Resources Onsite · Stormwater improvements are necessary within the development to meet City guidelines and in accordance with regulations of the WMO. · To move towards meeting load reduction goals, the City’s Local Surface Water Plan identifies that improvements to water resources will occur with development. · Ponding areas and limits will be closely reviewed for adjacent properties Offsite Offsite conveyance impacts for the development will be further explored as follows: · Drainage path along the north side of to ensure CR 50 conveyance is free flowing The City is exploring a stormwater fee that may be incorporated in 2022. FIGURES Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckPage 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: 2. Data Sources: Loucks 3. Background: Site Plan Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Site Plan 1 EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE DRIVE BUILDING B FFE=976.00 LOADING DOCK=972.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=119,462 LOT SIZE=387,843 PARKING STALLS=238 BUILDING A FFE=976.00 LOADING DOCK=972.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=77,116 LOT SIZE=267,389 PARKING STALLS=161 BUILDING C FFE=976.00 LOADING DOCK=972.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=168,517 LOT SIZE=428,922 PARKING STALLS=236 BUILDING D FFE=976.00 LOADING DOCK=972.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=97,055 LOT SIZE=361,694 PARKING STALLS=125 751.0 159.0 120.1 18.0 24.0 648.1 260.0 220.0 463.0 485.0 159.0 265.0 492.0 224.0 120.0 32.1 18.0 120.6 120.0 32.0 18.0 24.0 120.0120.0 129.9 24.024.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE DRIVE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE DRIVE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE DRIVE EMPLOYEE & LOADING DOCK ENTRANCE DRIVE LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCKLOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK LOADING DOCK RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL LOADING DOCK ACCESS EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING EMPLOYEE PARKING LOADING DOCK AND EMPLOYEE ACCESS 20' PARKING SETBACK20' PARKING SETBACK STORMWATER POND STORMWATER POND STORMWATER POND STORMWATER POND 18.0 18.0 18.0 24.0 18.0 20.0 18.0 24.0 17.0 18.0 24.0 18.0 24.0 18.0 L0T LINE L0T LINE L0T LINE 10' BITUMINOUS TRAIL 10' BITUMINOUS TRAIL 10' BITUMINOUS TRAIL 10' BITUMINOUS TRAIL PARKING STALLS=238 10% OFFICE=60 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=72 STALLS 20% OFFICE=120 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=64 STALLS (ENOUGH STALLS FOR 20 80) PARKING STALLS=161 10% OFFICE=39 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=47 STALLS 20% OFFICE=78 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=42 STALLS (ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080) PARKING STALLS=125 10% OFFICE=49 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=59 STALLS 20% OFFICE=97 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=52 STALLS (NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 20 80) PARKING STALLS=236 10% OFFICE=85 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=102 STALLS 20% OFFICE=169 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=90 STALLS (NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080) RETAINING WALL L0T LINE L0T LINE CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN RETAINING WALL 18.018.018.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 BUILDING E FFE=974.00 LOADING DOCK=970.00 SQUARE FOOTAGE=264,246 LOT SIZE=1,079,874 PARKING STALLS=341 PARKING STALLS=341 10% OFFICE=132 STALLS 90% WAREHOUSE=158 STALLS 20% OFFICE=264 STALLS 80% WAREHOUSE=141 STALLS (NOT ENOUGH STALLS FOR 2080) 24.0 18.0 18.0 FUTURE STREET EXTENSION TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC LOADING DOCK ACCESS N SCALE IN FEET 0 100 200 LOUCKS W:\2021\21442\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1 SITE PLANPlotted: 01 /24 / 2022 11:55 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION LARKIN ROAD FEASIBILITY CORCORAN, MN LEE & ASSOCIATES 5353 GAMBLE DRIVE, SUITE 106 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 SITE PLAN C2-1 23 CIVIL LEGEND Anoka County Carver County Dakota County Hennepin County Ramsey County Scott County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 8'' Pipe from J-D4 to J-L4 for "a" Scenarios; 12'' Pipe for "b" Scenarios 8'' from J-L3 to J-D9 on for Scenarios 2,5,8 16'' from J-L4 to J-C11 on for Scenarios 3,6,9 12'' from J-C11 to J-C15 off for Scenarios 1-3 Booster Pump off for Scenarios 1-6 Booster Pump on for Scenarios 7-9 Tower 1 off for Scenarios 1-6 HGL=1146 (3/4 full) for Scenarios 7-9 4567101 456747 456710 4567101 4567116 456710 4567116 Zir conLaN62nd Pl VagabondLa N66 t hPl N 65th Pl U r bandaleLa VagabondLaHorseshoe Tr Pinto Dr6 3 rd P lFoxberry Dr67th Ave NOldSturbridge DrCommerceStCommerceSt WTro y L a N68 t h A v e N 64t h A v e N 63rd Ave N Settlers Rd 6 3r d P l N Urban d aleLaMedi n aLa k eDrZircon L a 6 2nd A v eHunter Rd Fieldstone Blvd 81st P l V agab o n d L a Pa r kTrail DrUrb andaleL a NTrail La 6 8 th Pl N Olde Sturbridge Rd 66th Ave N HunterL a 81st Pl N 75th Ave N Elm S tValley Vi e wRdCSAH 101Hackamore RdSnyder RdBassLakeRd Ol d S e t t l e r s R d A b ile n e La CSAH 10 Troy LaHackamore Rd BrocktonLa NCSAH 50 Gleason RdBlue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd C S A H 1 0 Maple Hill RdCR-116Pump 1 T-1 Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 J-C1 J-C2 J-C3 J-C4 J-C16 J-D5 J-D10 J-D3 J-R2 J-R27 J-R24 J-R17 J-R19 J-R16 J-R5 J-D6 J-D7 J-R8 J-R9 J-R6 J-R7 J-R15 J-R10 J-R11 J-R14 J-R12 J-R13 J-R1 J-R3 J-R20 J-R21 J-D8 J-D9 J-D1 J-D2 J-R22 J-R23 J-D4 J-R18 J-R26 J-R4 J-C13 J-C11 J-C10 J-C15 J-L4 J-C19J-W1 J-W5 J-W9 J-W8 J-C20 J-W2 J-W4 J-W7 J-W6 J-R28 J-R30 J-R29 J-R31 J-R32 J-C14 J-C12 J-B1 J-B2 J-B3 J-R25 J-C22 J-W10 J-B4 J-B5 J-B6 J-B7 J-S6 J-S7 J-S8 J-S9 J-S10 J-S11 J-S15 J-S14 J-S13 J-S12 J-S4 J-S5 J-S3 J-S2 J-S1 J-W11 J-L1 J-L2 J-L3 J-S4 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Larkin Industrial Development Municipal Boundary Parcels 8'' Watermain 12'' Watermain 16'' Watermain 20" Watermain 24'' Watermain !(Water Nodes !(Pump !(Tank !A Wells Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:14,400 0 1,200 2,400 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Water System Layout 2 Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County $$ $ $ $$$$$$$$$$$!>!> !>!> Existing 18" Sewer 456710456750 BuckskinTrCSAH 10 75th Ave N Larkin Rd Auger Ave Larkin Rd CSAH 50 12'' Stub @ 0.22% 8'' Stub @ 0.40% 18'' @ 0.20% 18'' @ 0.15% Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Project Area County Parcels $Existing Sewer Existing Sanitary Manhole $Proposed Sewer Lines !>Proposed Manholes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 15N 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Aerial Photograph (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:4,800 0 200 400 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 T119N, R23W, S25 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Sewer Layout 8 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrAuger Ave CommerceStCommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSA H 10 6 8 t h Pl N 75th Ave N Bass La k e R d Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill Rd5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 2,055.1 gpm 1,983.3 gpm 1,803.5 gpm 1,962.7 gpm 1,925.6 gpm 1,793.3 gpm 1,888.8 gpm 1,918.0 gpm 1,986.7 gpm 1,987.4 gpm 1,973.4 gpm 3,977.4 gpm 1,783.4 gpm 3,243.1 gpm 1,960.8 gpm 1,249.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,120.6 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 2,597.8 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,845.7 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 1,987.6 gpm 1,992.8 gpm 1,992.8 gpm 1,993.5 gpm 1,995.6 gpm 1,995.6 gpm 1,992.8 gpm 1,996.8 gpm 1,997.8 gpm 2,003.5 gpm 2,044.3 gpm 2,011.3 gpm 1,747.2 gpm 2,046.8 gpm2,046.3 gpm 1,963.9 gpm 1,962.4 gpm 1,960.8 gpm 2,026.9 gpm Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Available Fire Flow !(>3,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm Pipes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 2b Fire Flow 3 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrAuger Ave CommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSAH10 6 8 t h Pl N 75th Ave N BassLake Rd Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill Rd46.7 psi 50.0 psi 63.8 psi 53.4 psi 54.9 psi 48.4 psi 51.5 psi 51.5 psi 50.2 psi 49.3 psi 50.6 psi 52.4 psi 52.4 psi 59.3 psi 51.4 psi 38.0 psi 46.4 psi 51.9 psi 47.4 psi 50.0 psi 48.4 psi 45.6 psi 55.1 psi 48.6 psi 55.1 psi 43.0 psi 46.5 psi 55.2 psi 57.1 psi 53.6 psi 53.6 psi 54.1 psi 61.4 psi 61.4 psi 53.6 psi 50.6 psi 50.6 psi 59.3 psi 58.1 psi 54.9 psi 64.0 psi 54.2 psi58.9 psi 48.4 psi 53.6 psi 51.9 psi 58.0 psi Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Pressure !(45-65 psi !(30-45 psi Pipes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 2b Pressure 4 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrAuger Ave CommerceStCommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSAH 10 6 8 t h Pl N 75th Ave N BassLake R d Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill Rd5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,884.0 gpm 3,406.8 gpm 3,299.1 gpm 3,708.4 gpm 3,610.0 gpm 2,210.4 gpm 3,531.4 gpm 3,043.3 gpm 3,762.0 gpm 3,109.0 gpm 3,448.9 gpm 4,332.7 gpm 3,240.3 gpm 4,427.6 gpm 2,859.5 gpm 1,408.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,116.7 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,103.7 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,844.5 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,318.1 gpm 3,206.1 gpm 3,206.1 gpm 3,220.1 gpm 3,175.4 gpm 3,175.4 gpm 3,206.1 gpm 3,065.4 gpm 2,938.4 gpm 3,128.4 gpm 3,845.4 gpm 2,488.3 gpm 1,953.7 gpm 3,478.6 gpm3,858.4 gpm 2,954.3 gpm 2,992.0 gpm 2,979.0 gpm 3,415.9 gpm Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Available Fire Flow !(>3,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm Pipes Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 5b Fire Flow 5 Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrCommerceStCommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSA H 10 6 8 t h Pl N 75th Ave N BassLake Rd Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill RdMaple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 46.7 psi 50.0 psi 63.8 psi 54.6 psi 56.3 psi 49.8 psi 52.8 psi 52.8 psi 51.5 psi 50.7 psi 51.9 psi 53.7 psi 53.7 psi 60.6 psi 51.4 psi 39.4 psi 46.0 psi 53.2 psi 48.6 psi 50.0 psi 48.4 psi 45.4 psi 55.0 psi 49.4 psi 55.1 psi 42.9 psi 46.4 psi 55.2 psi 58.4 psi 54.9 psi 54.9 psi 55.4 psi 62.7 psi 62.7 psi 54.9 psi 51.9 psi 51.9 psi 60.6 psi 59.3 psi 56.2 psi 65.3 psi 55.4 psi60.2 psi 49.8 psi 55.0 psi 53.2 psi 59.3 psi Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Pipes Pressure !(65-85 psi !(45-65 psi !(30-45 psi Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 5b Pressure 6 Note: Pressures for Scenario 6b are similar Anoka County Carver County Chisago County Dakota County Hennepin County McLeod County Ramsey County Sherburne County Wright County !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !A 456710 4567101 456750 4567116 4567116 456710 OldSturbridge DrAuger Ave CommerceStCommerceSt WLarkin Rd Buckskin Tr CSAH 10 6 8 t h Pl N 75th Ave N BassLake R d Abilene La CSAH 10 Troy LaBrockton La NCSAH 50 CR-116Blue Bonnet DrCR-116Larkin Rd Maple Hill Rd5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,674.7 gpm 3,491.7 gpm 3,329.0 gpm 3,502.8 gpm 3,435.2 gpm 2,247.3 gpm 3,386.9 gpm 2,584.4 gpm 3,545.3 gpm 3,256.8 gpm 3,465.4 gpm 4,337.8 gpm 3,296.6 gpm 4,498.7 gpm 3,344.1 gpm 1,409.2 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,117.2 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,274.8 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 4,844.6 gpm 5,000.0 gpm 3,501.1 gpm 3,511.0 gpm 3,511.0 gpm 3,511.9 gpm 3,463.6 gpm 3,402.4 gpm 3,511.0 gpm 3,326.0 gpm 3,165.0 gpm 3,397.2 gpm 3,634.3 gpm 2,596.3 gpm 1,983.4 gpm 3,648.0 gpm3,647.8 gpm 3,382.3 gpm 3,366.1 gpm 3,352.6 gpm 3,559.4 gpm Maple Grove Water Supply HGL=1098 Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\fs\fs.aprx Revised: 2022-05-05 By: jshuckLegend Municipal Boundary Larkin Industrial Development Parcels !A Water Supply Pipes Available Fire Flow !(>3,500 gpm !(2,500-3,500 gpm !(1,500-2,500 gpm !(500-1,500 gpm Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: Hennepin County 3. Background: Hennepin County 2020 Imagery (At original document size of 11x17) 1:10,800 0 450 900 Feet Prepared by JCS on 2022-05-05 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868 City of Corcoran Corcoran Farms Business Park Scenario 6b Fire Flow 7 APPENDIX A Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plans !O !O !O #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #*City of GreenfieldCityofMapleGroveCity of Medina City of Rogers Bechtold RdPio n e e r T r l TrailHavenRdCounty Road 116County Road 30 Schutte Rd Oakdale Dr County Ro a d 1 0 Horseshoe Trl Co u n t y R o a d 5 0 Larsen Rd Willow DrHunterRdCounty Road 19Homestead Trl Cain RdRolling Hills RdCountry Rd Mohawk DrLarkin RdFoxline DrStrehler Rd Dassel Ln OldSettlersR d Stie g R d Kalk RdMeister Rd Maple Hill Rd93rd Ave N Tessmer Rd Blue Bonnet DrJubertLn456710 456750 456719 456730 4567116 4567101 4567117 Brockton Ln N109th Ave N 4567101 ")55 Hackamore Rd Morin Lake Scott Lake Jubert Lake Goose Lake Cook Lake 456710 R u s h C reekRushCreek South F o r k Ru sh Creek SouthForkR u sh C r eek2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3,000 0 3,0001,500 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\Trunk Water System.mxd Date: 1/15/2019 Time: 1:36:40 PM User: ShuJC0243 Existing WatermainProposed Watermain !O Potential Water Tower Locations #*Existing Supply Connection withNeighboring Communities #*Proposed Supply Connection withNeighboring Communities #* Emergency Connection withNeighboring Communities(Normally Closed) #*Potential Water Storage #*Potential Booster StationPotential Future Well Exploration AreasMunicipal Boundary2040 MUSAFuture MUSA Expansion AreaParcel BoundariesStreamsLake/Open Water Map 9-2Trunk Water System 137 !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H #* Lift Station 2 and Existing Forcemain will not be needed in Proposed Condition City of Maple GroveCity of Medina Morin Lake Goose Lake County Road 116Horseshoe Trl BridlePathAbilene Ln Homestead Trl C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 County Road 50 GleasonPkwyWillow DrHunterRdCorcoranTrlWMaple Hill RdCorcoranTrlEMohawk DrTrail Haven RdLarkin RdCain RdO ld Se t t l e r s RdKalk RdMeister Rd Schutte Pl Strehler RdBlue Bonnet DrS outh F o rk R u s h C r e e k SE-A SE-A SE-O SE-AO SE-AP SE-AQ SE-AT SE-ASSE-AR SE-D SE-K SE-M SE-C SE-I SE-H SE-B SE-F SE-E SE-G SE-N SE-T SE-L SE-S SE-J SE-R SE-Q SE-P SE-AM SE-V SE-ZSE-Y SE-U SE-X SE-W SE-AESE-AJ SE-AC SE-AB SE-AD SE-AASE-AK SE-AU SE-AV SE-AISE-AHSE-AG SE-AF SE-18 SE-36 (LS) SE-37 SE-1 SE-2 SE-3 SE-4 SE-5 SE-6 SE-7SE-8 SE-9 SE-10 SE-11 SE-12 SE-13 SE-14 SE-15 SE-16 SE-17 SE-19 SE-20 SE-21 SE-22SE-23 SE-24 SE-25 SE-26 SE-27 SE-28 SE-29 SE-30 SE-31 SE-32 SE-33 SE-34 (LS) Elm Creek Interceptor SE-35 MCES Lift Station 8'' 1 2 ' ' 15'' 6''18''8''18''8''1 2 ' ' 8''15''8''15' '10''15"6''8''15"10''18''18''15''30''15''18''12"10''12''1 5 ' '10''8''12''(10''Eq)30''15''12''15"15''10'' 18'' 1 2 ' ' 8'' 456710 456750 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1,800 0 1,800900 Feet ± Path: L:\2294\100\2040CompPlan\SE Proposed Trunk Sanitary Sewer.mxd Date: 1/15/2019 Time: 1:32:33 PM User: ShuJC0243!Existing Gravity !Proposed Gravity !Proposed Gravity (Lateral)Existing ForcemainProposed ForcemainExisting MCES Forcemain(Interim Size Shown) #*MCES Lift Station !H Sewer Node (LS) = Lift StationSewer SubdistrictsMunicipal Boundary2040 MUSAParcel BoundariesStreamsLake/Open Water Map 7-3Proposed Trunk SanitarySewer System - SE District 117 APPENDIX B Stormwater Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines for Development March 2019 Issue Cities changing from rural to urban development are challenged by the additional stormwater generated due to construction of impervious surfaces, along with the offsite infrastructure, or lack thereof, to manage effectively. To standardize the modeling and review process, the guidelines below were created for efficiency. Note: A watershed approval is required per Elm Creek WMO rules, which also reviews flow rates, water quality and volume management. Modeling Watershed Information · Provide an aerial photo of the development that includes the overall watershed and subwatershed boundaries · Provide a summary of the acreage to each discharge point leaving the site. Any increase (or decrease) shall be identified. · Show any floodplain adjacent to project or within the project · Show downstream water bodies and flow paths o Downstream flow paths and water bodies typically need to have elevations, inverts, and condition identified. Subwatersheds A HydroCAD model (typically used) has inputs that can vary by user. To minimize resubmittals, review time and effort, the following data shall be utilized. · Electronic model shall be submitted · Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) shall be lowered one category due to the mass grading and compaction of the soils. For example, an existing B soil, shall be modeled as a proposed C soil (unless it remains undisturbed) · Wetlands, filtration basins, and ponds shall be modeled at CN of 98 · Identify peak rates for storm events and proposed shall be equal or less than existing rates. o Note: There are certain conditions where at City’s discretion the off-site conditions require a reduction in flow rate from existing rates. · SWMM (i.e. EPA-, XP-, or PC-) models can be submitted for review, however these increase review time. Model Setup for Outlet Control Structures, NWLs and Infiltration · The model’s flow control structures (OCS, culverts, etc.) shall match the construction plan information. During the plan and model review both may be modified and revised · Individual detail plates are required for each OCS, and individual plates shall have inverts identified · A pond or wetland NWL (and model starting elevation) shall be set at the constructed outlet control elevation. o No live storage shall be utilized below the controlling OCS elevation. o No live storage shall be used for filtration shelves on ponds below controlling OCS elevation · If a pond or wetland has an NWL (wet surface), infiltration shall not be used in flood routing. · If a pond has filtration BMP causing drawdown below the NWL, this drawdown elevation shall not be used as the NWL for flood routing. (Filtration has a slower release time and during wet periods is not available as live storage). Construction Plans Catch Basins · Street drainage shall be sufficient to manage the 10-year event · Typical a CB inlet capacity is 2 to 2.5 CFS, and CBs shall be spaced accordingly · Three inches (0.25 feet) of head on a CB will inundate a street centerline (2% slope). · Spacing is 200 to 250 feet using longitudinal street dimensions of 40 feet from road centerline to half the house footprint (assumes rear half of house drains to rear yard). Dimensions equal 10,000 SF. · CBs may be required on both sides of ped ramps to capture flows Natural Drainage Features · Waterbodies receiving urban drainage (wetlands, ditches, gullies) may need to have OCS installed, erosion protection, or reduced flow rates to allow the feature to function over the long term due to more consistent flows from increased impervious via development · Offsite work may be necessary and City will assist with coordination, easements, etc. HWLs and EOFs · The freeboard requirements are: o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the HWL o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the EOF · EOFs shall be accurately shown and as builts are required. The highest point shall be the EOF (for example top of curb) since this is the controlling elevation o In certain instances, channel calculations of the swale may be required to show the EOF has capacity to manage estimated flow · Overland EOFs are preferred, however if a second pipe serves as an EOF then modeling will include a 100-year event using the second pipe (EOF) as the only outlet (primary outlet plugged). Rear Yards · Rear yards or swales less than 2% shall have draintile. Typically, every two to three lots will require rear yard CBs. Sump Connections · Houses adjoining a wetland or pond do not need individual sump connection · Others will have access to rear yard stormsewer. Offsite Impacts Adjacent Parcels · City will review adjacent parcels (downstream and upstream) for impacts from volume, point discharge, etc. and may require off site improvements. City will assist in coordination of any off site work. · Off site water quality improvement projects may be determined by the City for assistance with compliance with City’s TMDL approach of implementing improvements upon development. · FEMA modifications may be necessary due to development and implemented by City. Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix F DNR NHIS Concurrence and USFWS IPaC Query Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 1 of 6 Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details have not been finalized and the results are not official. Project Name: Corcoran Farms Business Park Project Proposer: JMMK, LLC (JMMK) Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Project Type Activities: Tree Removal;Structure Removal or Bridge Removal;Wetland impacts (e.g., discharge, runoff, sedimentation, fill, excavation) TRS: T119 R23 S26 County(s): Hennepin DNR Admin Region(s): Central Reason Requested: State EAW Project Description: The Project proposes to construct an industrial park consisting of five buildings with a combined area of 726,000 square feet. Project components include ... Existing Land Uses: The Project Area is currently utilized for agricultural production. Surrounding land uses include commercial/industrial uses to the east, agricultural ... Landcover / Habitat Impacted: The Project will convert existing agricultural land into an industrial park. It is anticipated that tree clearing (approx. 0.75-1 acre) will be required. Waterbodies Affected: A DNR Public Water Watercourse (County Ditch 16) extends along the eastern boundary of the Project Area. Seven wetlands were delineated within the Project ... Groundwater Resources Affected: No impacts to groundwater are anticipated. Previous Natural Heritage Review: No Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS Category Results Response By Category Project Details No Comments No Further Review Required Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species No Comments No Further Review Required State-Listed Species of Special Concern Comments Recommendations Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 2 of 6 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 April 29, 2022 Natural Heritage Review #: 2022-00293 Erin Sejkora Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 7500 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 300 Golden Valley , MN 55427-4886 RE: Automated Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Corcoran Farms Business Park See Cover Page for location and project details. Dear Erin Sejkora, As requested, the above project has been reviewed for potential effects to rare features. Based on this review, the following rare features may be adversely affected by the proposed project: Project Type and/or Project Type Activity Comments The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed below, all seven of Minnesota’s bats, including the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. Tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided during the months of June and July. Ecologically Significant Area No ecologically significant areas have been documented in the vicinity of the project. State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species No state-listed endangered or threatened species have been documented in the vicinity of the project. State-Listed Species of Special Concern Taxonomic Group Common Name Scientific Name Water Regime Habitat Federal Status Vertebrate Animal Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Littoral Zone of Lake, Marsh 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 3 of 6 The above table identifies state-listed species of special concern that have been documented in the vicinity of your project. If suitable habitat for any of these species occurs within your project footprint or activity impact area, the project may negatively impact those species. To avoid impacting state- listed species of special concern, the DNR recommends modifying the location of project activities to avoid suitable habitat or modifying the timing of project activities to avoid the presence of the species. Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of these species and recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts. For further assistance, please contact the appropriate DNR Regional Nongame Specialist or Regional Ecologist. Species-specific comments, if any, appear below. Federally Listed Species The Natural Heritage Information System does not contain any records for federally listed species within one mile of the proposed project. However, to ensure compliance with federal law, please conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. 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 and the project description provided on the cover page. If project details change or construction has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, you may contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, Samantha Bump Natural Heritage Review Specialist Samantha.Bump@state.mn.us 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 4 of 6 Links: USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Contact Info https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 5 of 6 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Corcoran Farms Business Park MCE #: 2022-00293 Page 6 of 6 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 4/29/2022 11:55 AM Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 7500 Olson Memorial Highway Suite 300, Golden Valley MN 55427-4886 April 29, 2022 File: 227704868 Attention: NHIS Review Division of Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 Saint Paul, MN 55155 Good afternoon, Reference: Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW – NHIS Concurrence Request Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) on behalf of JMMK, LLC (JMMK) is assisting the City of Corcoran with developing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Corcoran Farms Business Park (Project). The Project is located on an approximately 70-acre parcel at 20130 Larkin Road in the City of Corcoran, Hennepin County, Minnesota in Township 119N, Range 23W, Section 26 (Project Area; Figure 1). The purpose of this letter is to seek concurrence on the determinations of state- listed species within the Project Area and a one-mile buffer. Project Description The Project proposes to construct an industrial park consisting of five buildings with a combined area of 726,000 square feet. Project components include construction of warehouse/office buildings, parking areas, access roads, trail facility, sewer/water utility improvements, and stormwater ponds, Demolition of existing farm buildings and structures will be required. The Project Area is currently utilized for agricultural production. Seven wetlands were delineated within the Project Area, primarily on the outer edges of the Project Area boundary. Impacts to wetland will be minimized to the extent possible. It is anticipated that the Project would primarily impact wetlands in the center portion of the Project Area. A DNR Public Water Watercourse extends along the eastern boundary of the Project Area. Figure 1 shows water resources and wetlands in the vicinity of the Project Area. The surrounding land use includes agricultural use to the west and southwest; an industrial business park to the east; and residents that border the south, west, and north of the Project Area. NHIS Review Stantec used it’s Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) Limited License Agreement (LA-1005) in March 2022 to identify species and habitats within the Project Area and a one-mile buffer. Based on a review on the MDNR NHIS, one state-listed species that is known to occur or potentially occur within the Project Area is the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator; state special concern species). The NHIS informs of habitats such as native plant communities, Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (RSEAs), and biodiversity sites within the Project Area and within a one-mile buffer. April 29, 2022 NHIS Review Page 2 of 3 Reference: Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW – NHIS Concurrence Request • No native plant communities are found within the Project Area or within the one-mile buffer. • No RSEAs were identified within the Project Area, but one RSEA with outstanding significance was identified 0.65 miles northeast of the Project Area. • No sites of biodiversity significance were identified within the Project Area or within the one-mile buffer. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) During the breeding season, trumpeter swans use small ponds and lakes or bays on larger water bodies that have approximately 100 meters of open water for take-off and have extensive beds of emergent vegetation such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. They will commonly use muskrat houses, beaver lodges, exposed hummocks, small islands, and floating platforms to construct their nests. Adult trumpeter swans are primarily herbivorous but will occasionally feed on small crustaceans, fish, and fish eggs. Currently, the leading threat to their population is lead poisoning from lead shot and fishing sinkers. Other threats include degradation of wetland habitat, power line collisions, and illegal hunting. Although repopulation efforts have continued to be successful, the trumpeter swam was included on Minnesota’s List of Endangered and Threatened Species with the status of special concern due to continued threats to their population. (DNR 2022)1. The Project Area consists of active agricultural land and does not contain suitable breeding or feeding habitat for the trumpeter swan such as small ponds and lakes. Based on a review of the NHIS data, occurrences of trumpeter swans were associated with an unnamed waterbody which is approximately 0.85 miles southeast of the Project Area. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, the Project will have no impact on the trumpeter swam. Conclusion The Project Area does not contain potential suitable habitat for listed plants, animals, native plant communities, and other rare features. Therefore, it is not anticipated that significant impacts to state-listed species or habitat would result from the proposed industrial park. Per Stantec’s license agreement and the requirements of the state environmental review, Stantec is requesting the DNR’s concurrence with our review and assessment of the potential impacts from the Project on known species documented in the NHIS database. The specific NHIS data evaluated as part of this review will not be distributed, mapped, or used within the Scoping EAW document or publicly distributed. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 763.252.6802 or Erin.Sejkora@stantec.com should you have any questions. Thank you for your time. 1 DNR 2022b. Rare Species Guide Trumpeter Swan. Available at: Cygnus buccinator: Trumpeter Swan | Rare Species Guide | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us). Accessed March 2022. April 29, 2022 NHIS Review Page 3 of 3 Reference: Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW – NHIS Concurrence Request Regards, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Erin Sejkora Project Manager, Senior Planner Phone: 763.252.6802 Erin.Sejkora@stantec.com Attachment: Project Location Figure Anoka County Hennepin County Wright County ^_!(!($+50 $+116 $+10 75th Ave NCain RdOl d S e t t l ers R dTrail La 70th Ave N Larkin Rd Abilene L a Gleason RdWCorcoranTrE CorcoranTrMeister Rd Maple Hill RdHorseshoe TrKalk RdUnnamed(west portion) (27043902) Unnamed (27044000) Unnamed (27042500) Unnamed (27043700) Unnamed (27043100) Unnamed (27043800) Unnamed (27042400) Unnamed (27042600) Unnamed (27043000) Unnamed (27042900) Unnamed (27042800) Unnamed (27042700) Unnamed (27043200) Unnamed(east portion) (27043901)RushC reek,S o uth F ork (M-062-0 0 4-002)Unnamed Creek(M-062-004-002-004)UnnamedStream (M-06 2 -012)UnnamedCreek ( M -062-004-002-002)Rush Creek, South Fork 07010206-760 (FishesBio; InvertBio) County Ditch 16 07010206-761 (FishesBio) 15 1314 22 23 24 27 26 25 34 35 36 T119 R23W Maple Grove Corcoran Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data. Client/Project Figure No. Project Location Title "($$¯V:\2277\active\227704868\03_data\gis_cad\gis\pro\eaw\eaw.aprx Revised: 2022-04-01 By: kjmuellerLegend 1 Mile Radius Project Area Field Delineated Wetland !( 2022 MPCA Impaired Streams (Draft) Minnesota Public Waters Delineations Public Water Watercourse Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Waters Basins NHD - Flowline NHD - Waterbody NWI Circular 39 Class 1 - Seasonally Flooded Basin or Flat 2 - Wet Meadow 3 - Shallow Marsh 4 - Deep Marsh 5 - Shallow Open Water 6 - Shrub Swamp 7 - Wooded Swamp 8 - Bog Riverine Systems Page 1 of 1 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Hennepin Feet 2. Data Sources: City of Corcoran, MNDNR, MNDOT 3. Background: MnGeo 2020 7-county (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:24,000 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Prepared by KJM on 2022-04-01T119N, R23W, S26 Corcoran, Hennepin Co., MN 227704868City of Corcoran, MN Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Water Resources Map 1 Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix G Traffic Impact Study File #227704868 April 28, 2022 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Phone: 7963-479-4200 Fax: 763-479-4242 Prepared for: City of Corcoran, MN 8200 CR 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Traffic Impact Study for Corcoran Farms Business Park in Corcoran, MN April 2022 i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................... 2-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................... 3-1 4.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................ 4-1 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 6-1 7.0 APPENDIX ........................................................................................ 7-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................. 2-2 FIGURE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................................................. 2-3 FIGURE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................. 3-2 FIGURE 4 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................. 4-3 FIGURE 5 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .............................. 4-4 FIGURE 6 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS ..................................... 5-5 FIGURE 7 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR LOS RESULTS ..................................... 5-6 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________________________________ DATE: April 28, 2022 Edward F. Terhaar License No. 24441 April 2022 1-1 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the impacts of a proposed business park development located in Corcoran, MN. This study is part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. The project site is generally located on the north side of Larkin Road at Blue Bonnet Drive. Based on discussions with City, this study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • CSAH 10/CR 116 • CSAH 10/CSAH 50 • CR 116/Larkin Road • Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access The most intense development alternative consists of the following uses: • Building A – 15,423 square feet of office and 61,693 square feet of warehouse • Building B – 23,892 square feet of office and 95,570 square feet of warehouse • Building C – 33,703 square feet of office and 134,814 square feet of warehouse • Building D – 19,411 square feet of office and 77,644 square feet of warehouse • Building E – 52,849 square feet of office and 211,397 square feet of warehouse One access point will be provided on Larkin Road at Blue Bonnet Drive. For purpose of this study, the development is expected to be completed in 2027. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate 320 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 314 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,072 trips daily. • All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the 2022, 2027 No-Build, 2027 Build, and 2040 No-Build scenarios. Under the 2040 Build scenario, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better. • The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal control is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. April 2022 1-2 • Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o CSAH 10/CR 116 ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 10/CSAH 50 ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CR 116/Larkin Road ▪ Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. ▪ Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. o Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access ▪ Short term – Construct a westbound right turn lane. ▪ Long term – No additional improvements needed. April 2022 2-1 2.0 Purpose and Background The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study is to evaluate the impacts of a proposed business park development located in Corcoran, MN. This study is part of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. The project site is generally located on the north side of Larkin Road at Blue Bonnet Drive. The project location is shown in Figure 1. Based on discussions with City, this study examined weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: • CSAH 10/CR 116 • CSAH 10/CSAH 50 • CR 116/Larkin Road • Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access Proposed Development Characteristics The most intense development alternative consists of the following uses: • Building A – 15,423 square feet of office and 61,693 square feet of warehouse • Building B – 23,892 square feet of office and 95,570 square feet of warehouse • Building C – 33,703 square feet of office and 134,814 square feet of warehouse • Building D – 19,411 square feet of office and 77,644 square feet of warehouse • Building E – 52,849 square feet of office and 211,397 square feet of warehouse One access point will be provided on Larkin Road at Blue Bonnet Drive. For purpose of this study, the development is expected to be completed in 2027. The proposed development plan is shown in Figure 2. April 2022 2-2 April 2022 2-3 April 2022 3-1 3.0 Existing Conditions The proposed project site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is bounded by Larkin Road on the south, existing residential uses on the west and north, and existing commercial uses on the east. Near the site location, Larkin Road is a two lane rural section roadway. CSAH 10, CSAH 50, and CR 116 are two lane roadways with turn lanes and traffic signal control at major intersections. Blue Bonnet Drive is a local two-lane roadway. Existing conditions near the proposed project location are shown in Figure 3 and described below. CSAH 10/CR 116 This four-way intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The eastbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane. CSAH 10/CSAH 50 This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the eastbound approach. The eastbound approach provides one left turn/right turn lane. The northbound approach provides one left turn lane and one through lane. The southbound approach provides one shared lane for left turn and through movements. CR 116/Larkin Road This four-way intersection is controlled with stop signs on the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound and southbound approaches provide one left turn /through lane and one through/right turn bypass lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches provide one left turn/through/right turn lane. Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive This three-way intersection is controlled with a stop sign on the northbound approach. The eastbound approach provides one through/right turn lane. The westbound approach provides one left turn/through lane. The northbound approach provides one shared lane for left turn and right turn movements. Traffic Volume Data Weekday traffic volume data was recorded at the existing intersections in March, 2022. Existing traffic volume data is presented later in this report. April 2022 3-2 April 2022 4-1 4.0 Traffic Forecasts Traffic Forecast Scenarios To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the years 2027 and 2040. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the subject intersections. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. • 2027 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.5 percent per year to determine 2027 No-Build volumes. The 2.5 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on traffic forecast information presented in the 2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan. • 2027 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2027 No-Build volumes to determine 2027 Build volumes. • 2040 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 2.5 percent per year to determine 2040 No-Build volumes. The 2.5 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on traffic forecast information presented in the 2040 Corcoran Comprehensive Plan. • 2040 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2040 No-Build volumes to determine 2040 Build volumes. Trip Generation for Proposed Project The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Office 145,278 SF 194 27 221 35 174 209 1575 Warehouse 581,118 SF 76 23 99 29 76 105 497 Totals 270 50 320 64 250 314 2072 Note: SF=square feet Trip Distribution Percentages Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population con centrations. April 2022 4-2 The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are described below: • 30 percent to/from the east on CSAH 10 • 30 percent to/from the south on CR 116 • 20 percent to/from the north on CR 116 • 10 percent to/from the west on CSAH 10 • 10 percent to/from the west on Larkin Road Traffic Volumes Development trips from Table 4-1 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were estab lished for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant peak hour volumes are shown in Figures 4 and 5. April 2022 4-3 April 2022 4-4 April 2022 5-1 5.0 Traffic Analysis Intersection Level of Service Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: • Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. • Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, b ut with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. • Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay r anges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffi c flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. • Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. • Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. April 2022 5-2 The LOS results are shown in Figures 6 and 7 and described below. All LOS worksheets are included in the Appendix for further detail. 2022 Existing Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal B/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2027 No-Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/A CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/B A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2027 Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/C C/C CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/D A/D Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr/access NB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. April 2022 5-3 2040 No-Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop A/C A/C Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr NB stop A/A A/A Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2040 Build Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS CSAH 10/CR 116 Signal C/D C/D CSAH 10/CSAH 50 EB stop A/B A/B CR 116/Larkin Road EB/WB stop B/F C/F Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Dr/access NB stop A/B A/B Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. The eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic Signal Warrants at CR 116/Larkin Road As shown above, the eastbound movements operate at LOS F during the 2040 Build scenarios at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection. In order to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development, traffic signal control was considered at this location. The traffic forecasts for the 2027 Build and 2040 Build scenarios were used to analyze the peak hour and four-hour traffic signal warrants. These volumes include trips from the proposed project as well as other background traffic. The traffic volume forecasts were used to determine if specific warrants are satisfied based on published criteria outlined in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) were assessed. Since the posted speed limits on CR 116 is 50 mph, the analyses presented consider reductions for speeds greater than 40 mph. The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control must be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. April 2022 5-4 Intersection Operations at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control A potential mitigation measure for the operational issues shown at the CR 116/Larkin Road intersection is traffic signal control. The updated intersection operation results assuming traffic signal control are shown below. Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS Results at CR 116/Larkin Road with Traffic Signal Control Scenario AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS 2027 Build B/B B/B 2040 Build B/C B/C Note: Level of service results presented with overall intersection LOS followed by worst movement LOS. All movements and the overall intersection operate at LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under both scenarios. Recommended Mitigation Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: • CSAH 10/CR 116 o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. • CSAH 10/CSAH 50 o Short term – No improvements needed. o Long term – No improvements needed. • CR 116/Larkin Road o Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. o Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. • Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access o Short term – Construct a westbound right turn lane. o Long term – No additional improvements needed. April 2022 5-5 April 2022 5-6 April 2022 6-1 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development is expected to generate 320 trips during the a.m. peak hour, 314 trips during the p.m. peak hour, and 2,072 trips daily. • All intersections and movements operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under the 2022, 2027 No-Build, 2027 Build, and 2040 No-Build scenarios. Under the 2040 Build scenario, the eastbound movements at CR 116/Larkin Road operate at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. All other movements and intersections operate at LOS D or better. • The results of the signal warrant analysis for the 2027 Build condition indicate the warrants are not met at the intersection. Using the 2040 Build volumes, the warrants are met. Based on this review, the traffic volumes at this intersection should be monitored as additional development occurs in this area to determine when traffic signal is needed. Any changes to the intersection control m ust be reviewed and approved by Hennepin County. • Based on the traffic forecasts and operations analysis for each intersection, the following mitigation measures are recommended: o CSAH 10/CR 116 ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CSAH 10/CSAH 50 ▪ Short term – No improvements needed. ▪ Long term – No improvements needed. o CR 116/Larkin Road ▪ Short term – Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane and a through/right turn lane. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches to accommodate a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. ▪ Long term – Monitor traffic volumes to determine when signal control is warranted. o Larkin Road/Blue Bonnet Drive/development access ▪ Short term – Construct a westbound right turn lane. ▪ Long term – No additional improvements needed. April 2022 7-1 7.0 Appendix • Level of Service Worksheets HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 am.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet/access & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 10.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet/access & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 am b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2022 pm.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet/access & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2027 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm nb.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR HCM 6th TWSC 14: CR 10 & CR 50 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 3: CR 116 & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 16.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR HCM 6th TWSC 6: Blue Bonnet/access & Larkin 04/21/2022 U:\227704868\Technical\01 - Concept Plan Review\traffic\Synchro\2040 pm b.syn Synchro 10 Report Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Corcoran Farms Business Park EAW Appendix H SHPO Response Letter MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER May 4, 2022 Kendra Lindahl City Planner City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 RE: Corcoran Farms Business Park T119 R23 S26, Corcoran, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 2022-1337 Dear Kendra Lindahl: Thank you for consulting with our office during the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above-referenced project. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in our Environmental Review Program at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, Sarah J. Beimers Environmental Review Program Manager Page 1 of 13 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8a. City Council Meeting: May 26, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Zewde Subdivision “FIRA” (PID 28-119-23-23-0002; 28-119-23-21-0001) (City File No. 22-002) Action Required: Approval Review Deadline: August 2, 2022 1. Application Request The applicant, Anteneh Zewde, requests approval of the preliminary and final plat called “FIRA,” which creates three lots where there are currently two lots at 7320 Rolling Hills Road and 22105 County Road 50. The application also includes a variance request to allow accessory structures on Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the proposed plat that exceed the accessory structure footprint and encroach into setbacks and wetland buffers. 2. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed this item at a public hearing on May 5, 2022. One person spoke at the public hearing asking for clarification of the number of lots in the subdivision. The Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and a variance allowing an accumulated footprint of up to 9,604 square feet of accessory structure space on Lot 3. Additionally, the draft resolution forwarded by the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance requests to allow an accessory structure footprint that exceeds the limit on Lot 2 and several accessory structures that encroach into the required setbacks and wetland buffers. 3. Background The applicant owns 7320 Rolling Hills Road, a 9.86-acre parcel formally part of a 60- acre farmstead. As a part of the farmstead, several accessory agricultural buildings were constructed in addition to a second house used as living quarters for a farmhand. In 2018, the original parcel was subdivided into six lots as a part of Rush Creek Run. This property became Lot 4, Block 2 of Rush Creek Run. At the time of the preliminary approvals of the subdivision, Lot 4 was allowed to retain the two homes as well as all of the accessory structures as legal, non-conforming buildings. The reasoning behind this allowance was that this property, initially shown as a 10-acre parcel, would be allowed to surpass the 3,969 square foot accessory structure footprint with a conditional use permit and agricultural buildings exceeding 3,969 square feet can be approved through a certificate of compliance. However, these Page 2 of 13 buildings predate the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 2004, and the non-conformity section of the City Code in 2018 provided the following: Any established building, structure, use or lot legally existing prior to March 23, 2004, and which is classified by this Zoning Ordinance as requiring a conditional use permit or interim use permit may be continued in like fashion and activity and shall be automatically considered as having received a conditional use permit or interim use permit approval. Therefore, as legal, nonconforming buildings, the approvals through a conditional use permit process were automatically assumed. The following statement was included in the preliminary approvals of Rush Creek Run: The existing farmstead contains various structures and will be located on a 10- acre lot. A lot of this size would allow 3,969 sq. ft. of accessory structures, but the existing structures exceed this allowance. They become legal non-conforming structures that may be continued but shall not be enlarged or increased. MN state statutes do not protect expansion of nonconformities. Expansion is not a clearly defined term within the statutes, and cities are allowed some flexibility in how they define this term. Last year, the City updated the Zoning Ordinance to include the following definition: EXPANSION, ENLARGEMENT, OR INTENSIFICATION: Any increase in a dimension, size, area, volume, or height; any increase in the area of use; any placement of a structure or part thereof where none existed before; any addition of a site feature such as a deck, patio, fence, driveway, parking area or swimming pool; any improvement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed; any move of operations to a new location on the property; any increase in intensity of use based on a review of the original nature, function, or purpose of the nonconforming use, such as the hours of operation, traffic, parking, noise, exterior storage, signs, exterior lighting, types of operations, types of goods or services offered, odors, area of operation, number of employees, and other factors deemed relevant by the city. In consultation with the City Attorney, staff finds the intensity of the nonconformities on the site are increased with the proposed lot division. While the expansions of a nonconforming accessory structure can now be approved by an administrative approval under Section 1030.010, Subd. 3(D)(1), this is not allowed when the structural nonconformity is increased and when the expansion does not otherwise comply with the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The impacted buildings will be discussed in detail in the analysis of the preliminary plat and variance. At the time of the Rush Creek Run subdivision, the watershed did note three accessory structures on Lot 4 located within the floodplain and requested these buildings be Page 3 of 13 removed. The City did not include this as a requirement of approval for the subdivision since the structures were considered legal nonconforming buildings. Currently, 7320 Rolling Hills Road does not have a development right to allow for further subdivision of the parcel as all rights assigned to the original parcel were exhausted with the platting of Rush Creek Run. However, the applicant worked with the property owner of the parcel immediately east, 22105 County Road 50, to re-assign a development right that will allow for the subdivision of 7320 Rolling Hills Rd. The preliminary plat for FIRA will result in two lots at the parcel currently known as 7320 Rolling Hills Rd. No changes are proposed on 22105 County Road 50, and 11 development rights will remain on this property after FIRA is finalized. No new development is anticipated to occur within the area of the plat since the process will simply result in one new lot line that will officially separate the two existing houses on the premises. Because no new development is proposed on 22105 County Road 50, the City Council granted a request to waive the wetland delineation requirement on December 22, 2021. 4. Context Zoning and Land Use The two existing parcels are located in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district, and the Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Rural/Ag Residential. The delineated wetland on 7320 Rolling Hills Road is subject to the Wetland Overlay district regulations. The properties are not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Surrounding Properties All surrounding properties are located within the RR district, designated as Rural/Ag Residential, and outside of the MUSA. The present land uses on all surrounding properties include single-family residential and agricultural uses. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory map identifies shrub and wet prairie wetlands throughout 22105 County Road 50 in addition to the south bend of Rush Creek, which cuts through the southern portion of the parcel. The wet prairie wetland touches on the eastern portion of 7320 Rolling Hills Road. Hennepin County Natural Resources Map identifies probable and potential wetlands on both 7320 Rolling Hills Road and 22105 County Road 50. The wetland delineation completed on the Rolling Hills property in 2018 confirmed a medium quality wetland along the eastern portion of the site. 5. Analysis Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and City Code requirements, as well as City Page 4 of 13 policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, the detailed comments are included in the attached Engineering Memo and the approval conditions require compliance with the memo. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. If the proposed subdivision meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. The City has a higher discretion in approving or denying a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that the variance standards are met. Conditions can be applied to mitigate the impact of granting the variance. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Preliminary Plat The applicant’s proposal will subdivide two parcels into three properties. All resulting lots comply with the RR district standards. A comparison of the RR district standards and the proposed lots is reflected in the table below: RR District Standard Lot 1 (22105 CR 50) Lot 2 Lot 3 Minimum lot area 2 acres 118.66 acres 5.12 acres 4.74 acres Minimum lot width 200 feet 386.06 feet 362.9 feet 352.65 feet Minimum lot depth 300 feet 2,587.45 feet 618.73 feet 582.3 feet Setbacks The minimum setbacks for the RR district are detailed in the table below: Minimum Principal Structure Setback Minimum Accessory Structure Setback Front (County Roads) 100 feet 100 feet Front (All Other Roads) 50 feet 50 feet Side 25 feet 20 feet Rear 25 feet 15 feet The existing homes on all three lots exceed the required front, side, and rear setbacks. There are several existing accessory buildings on Lot 1 including 5 sheds, 2 barns, and 1 corn crib. There are 2 sheds that don’t meet the front setback of 100’ from County Road 50. However, aerial views of the property on Hennepin County confirm these structures predate the Zoning Ordinance established in 2004. Since no physical changes are proposed to this lot, staff believes the location of these structures is Page 5 of 13 protected as a legal nonconformity. The remaining structures meet the required setbacks. There are 5 accessory structures on Lot 2. All structures meet the required lot line setbacks except for a “Playhouse” that is within the side setback. Since the Playhouse did conform to all setbacks prior to the proposed lot division, the structure’s placement within the newly established side setback is not protected as a legal nonconformity. The Playhouse will either need to be moved to meet the 20’ side setback for accessory structures, or the encroachment will need to be addressed through the variance request to be discussed later in this report. There are 7 accessory structures on Lot 3. All structures meet the required setbacks except for Shed F which is within the side setback of the southern lot line. The placement of Shed F within the side setback predates the Zoning Code. Since there are no proposed changes to the southern lot line, staff believes the placement of Shed F within the side setback is protected as a legal nonconformity. Accessory Structure Accumulated Footprint Section 1030.020, Subd. 4 limits accessory structures based on the total accumulated footprint of structures and the acreage of the site. Additionally, properties are allowed one structure not exceeding 200 square feet to be considered exempt from the footprint calculation. Lot 1 is allowed 3,969 square feet of accessory structure space by right. However, lots of at least 10 acres can request an increased footprint with a conditional use permit for non-agricultural accessory structures or by a certificate of compliance for agricultural buildings. Dimensions are not provided for the accessory structures on Lot 1. At the same time, the parcel is over 118 acres in size, actively farmed, and the lot lines are not proposed to change with this plat. Furthermore, since the buildings appear to pre-date the Zoning Ordinance, this lot is considered compliant regardless of the square footage of these structures as any variations from the Ordinance requirements are protected as legal nonconformities. Proposed Lot 2 is allowed 2,469 square feet of accessory structure space. The proposed accumulated footprint is 6,030 square feet with an 83 square foot Playhouse exempted from the calculation. This does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance without a variance and will be further addressed in the variance portion of the report. Proposed Lot 3 is allowed 2,344 square feet of accessory structure space. The proposed accumulated footprint is 16,841 square feet. There are no existing structures on Lot 3 under 200 square feet that qualify for the calculation exemption. The footprint does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance without a variance as will be further discussed later in this report. Streets/Access Page 6 of 13 Access will remain the same for all existing homes. 22105 County Road 50 has direct access on to County Road 50. There are already two driveways on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd. The preliminary plat reflects that Lot 2 and Lot 3 will retain their existing driveways on to Rolling Hills Rd. Well and Septic All three lots have an existing septic system. Typically, septic systems must be approved by the Hennepin County Public Health Department as a condition of approval for preliminary plats. That will not be necessary with this subdivision since each lot already has an existing septic system, with the systems on Lots 2 and 3 last reviewed in 2018. A well is shown on Lots 1 and 3. A well is not shown on Lot 2. Currently, the well on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd serves both houses. However, the lot division triggers a need for the MN Department of Health to review the shared well. As a condition of approval, the applicant will either need to enter into a formal shared well agreement if approved by the state or identify an acceptable location for a separate well on Lot 2. If the applicant moves forward with a new well, the preliminary plat would need to be updated to show the approved location of the well and required setback. Wetlands Since no development or lot line changes are proposed for Lot 1, the City Council granted a wetland waiver in December of 2021. A wetland delineation on proposed Lots 2 and 3 was previously completed as a part of the plat for Rush Creek Run in 2018. Wetland delineations are valid for 5 years, so a new wetland delineation is not required with this platting process. A medium quality wetland was identified along the eastern portion of Lots 2 and 3. The preliminary plat reflects a delineated wetland on the eastern portion of both Lots 2 and 3. There are three structures shown to be within the area that was to be established as a wetland buffer when Rush Creek Run was platted: Shed A and Shed C on Lot 2 and the Quonset on Lot 3. Structures are not allowed within wetland buffers and must be setback 15’ from established wetland buffers. Staff did not enforce this requirement when Rush Creek Run was platted since the structures were believed to be legal nonconforming buildings. The watershed did request for the buildings be removed from the floodplain when they reviewed the Rush Creek Run plat, but this was not enforced. Due to the increased intensity of nonconformities that will result from the lot split, staff (including the City Attorney) do not believe the same protections for legal nonconforming buildings applied at the time of the Rush Creek Run plat apply with the proposed FIRA plat. While keeping the structures in their current location can be a part of the variance request, the Engineering Memo identifies options to bring these structures into compliance with the Wetland Overlay district standards in Section 1050.010, Subd. 5. The first option is to adjust the wetland buffer averages by Page 7 of 13 decreasing the buffer around the buildings to the allowed minimum while increasing the buffer elsewhere to maintain the required average. However, even if the buffer is reduced to the minimum 20’ required for medium quality wetlands, there is still a 15’ setback from the buffer. Planning staff does not believe this will be a viable option for the applicant to satisfy the district requirements without a variance. The second option identified by Engineering is to relocate the buildings outside of the wetland buffer. This will be discussed further in the variance section of this report. The preliminary plat for Rush Creek Run indicates that 11 wetland monument signs were to be installed on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd. These monument signs were not included on the survey and preliminary plat for FIRA, which suggests that these signs were either not installed as required or have since been removed. As a condition of approval, the preliminary plat will need to be revised to meet the wetland monument sign requirements in addition to showing the 15’ wetland setback. Staff anticipates there will now be 12 required wetland monument signs since an additional sign will be required to mark where the new proposed lot line between Lots 2 and 3 crosses the wetland. Additionally, the installation of all required signs will be a condition of approval for the project. Park Dedication Section 955.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance states, “Park Dedication is only due in cases where additional new parcels are created.” The preliminary plat for FIRA proposes to create one additional parcel. Park dedication will be required. For residential developments, the cash-in-lieu of land fees are calculated on the per capita share of park system costs, which is currently $4,628 per single family unit in the 2022 Fee Schedule. The applicant will be required to pay cash in lieu of land dedication based on the adopted fee schedule at the time of final plat recording. Landscaping The applicants’ plan indicates that no significant trees will be removed as no further development is anticipated. A landscape plan is not required since this plat involves less than 4 residential units. Residential uses shall provide a minimum of one overstory tree per dwelling unit. No additional landscaping is required to meet this requirement. Drainage and Utility Easements Proposed Lot 1 shows new drainage and utility (D&U) easements of 15’ along County Road 50 and 10’ along the remaining interior property lines. There are existing D&U easements on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd that completely cover the wetland and wetland buffers in addition to an established 15’ easement along Rolling Hills Rd and a 10’ D&U easement along the interior lot lines to the north and south. These easements will remain, and Lot 2 and Lot 3 will each have a new 10’ D&U easement along the shared lot line. Variance Page 8 of 13 The applicant requests a variance to allow for the existing structures on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd to remain as they are after the lot division in both size and location. This is essentially 5 variance requests, which would allow: 1. An accessory structure footprint on Lot 2 of 6,030 square feet where 2,469 square feet is allowed. 2. An accessory structure footprint on Lot 3 of 16,841 square feet where 2,344 square feet is allowed. a. The applicant expressed a willingness to remove Shed E, Shed H, and the Quonset on Lot 3 if deemed necessary by the City. This would reduce the footprint to 9,604 square feet. 3. An accessory structure encroachment within the wetland setback and buffer for Shed A and Shed C on Lot 2. 4. An accessory structure encroachment of the 20’ side setback for the Playhouse on Lot 2. 5. An accessory structure encroachment within the wetland setback and buffer for the Quonset on Lot 3. a. The applicant has expressed a willingness to remove the Quonset if deemed necessary by the City which would make this portion of the variance request irrelevant. In order to approve the variances, the applicant must provide proof to the City that the following variance criteria have been met: 1. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The League of MN Cities defines a three-factor test for the term “practical difficulties”: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise allowed by the zoning ordinance. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Section 1070.040, Subd. 2(B) of the Zoning Ordinance specifically calls out the last two factors as their own standards and will be discussed individually. Therefore, this first standard can focus on evaluating the “reasonableness” of the request. The variances will allow the applicant to subdivide a parcel currently functioning as two properties while retaining the existing accessory structures that would otherwise remain as legal nonconforming structures if not for the desire to delineate the lot boundary. There is an intention by the current occupants to continue utilizing the accessory structures, primarily for hobby farming purposes. Removing the buildings to comply with the limited footprints permitted in City Code will inhibit the ability for the current occupants of the property to continue their respective hobby farms as-is. Page 9 of 13 The City Council could find that the encroachment into setbacks and the existing footprint is reasonable to support the existing hobby farms and utilization of the site. It can be argued that splitting the lot is a technicality considering there are no physical changes proposed to the site, and enforcement of the setbacks and footprint limit for accessory structures creates an unnecessary burden for the property owner when applied to established and functional buildings. The applicant indicated that Shed B on proposed Lot 2 is used for garden tool storage while Sheds A and C are used for feed storage, livestock, and farm equipment. The applicant provided that Shed D on proposed Lot 3 is used as a workshop space; Shed F is used as a garage and workshop; and the remaining sheds and Quonset are either used or planned for equipment storage, livestock, and feed storage. The garages on both lots will be used as intended. On the other hand, the Council could find that the request is based on primarily financial considerations as the structures can be removed and/or relocated to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. It could be argued that it is unreasonable for the smaller lots to continue with the same amount of accessory structure space established when the property was originally a 60-acre farmstead. While both properties are permitted to keep farm animals, the amount of animals (i.e., animal units) will be more limited than what was allowed when the structures were created. Per Chapter 81.11 of the City Code, proposed Lot 2 will be permitted 4 animal units, while proposed Lot 3 will be permitted 3 animal units. Every other parcel of similar size within Corcoran is allowed to keep the same amount of animals as well as equipment to maintain their property, but must do so within the accessory structure square footage allotted per the City Code. 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The applicant asks that the Council consider the uniqueness of the history of the parcel in its long-standing use as a farmstead that included two homes (one for the property owner and one for a farmhand) and structures previously deemed allowable as legal nonconforming buildings. The applicant points out that the property is unique in that it already functions as two separate lots with separate mailing addresses and separate utilities (except for water). As the current landowner, he did not construct the accessory structures. He was also not involved in the prior subdivision for Rush Creek Run. The Council could find these arguments sufficient. However, the Council could argue that there are no physical characteristics of the site that can serve as a reason that the structures must remain in totality. Additionally, in discussions with the City Attorney, the MN state statute is unclear on whether “landowner” includes all predecessors or just the current landowner. The City Code does not explicitly define the use of this term in this context either (see Section 1070.040, Subd. 2 (B)). The Commission could apply a strict interpretation of “landowner” which includes all previous landowners. Under this interpretation, the Page 10 of 13 situation is a making of the previous landowners who constructed the second home and accessory structures and made a conscious choice to not subdivide the two homes at the time Rush Creek Run was platted. 3. That the granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variance will not alter the essential character of the locality as no changes are proposed to the existing structures. Allowing the accessory buildings to remain for hobby farming keeps with the rural character of Corcoran 4. The proposed variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The applicant points to Section 1010.020 which outlines the “Purpose and Intent” of the Zoning Ordinance. He argues that retaining the structures in their current placement and size specifically accomplishes #9: Conserving the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. On the other hand, it could be argued that continued placement of the structures within the wetland buffer and wetland setback is not in harmony with #8: Conserving the natural resources and maintaining a high standard of environmental quality. Additionally, the general reasoning behind a maximum footprint for accessory structures is to limit impervious surface. The Council could find that allowing the accumulated footprint to exceed the permitted amount by thousands of square feet is not in the general harmony of the purpose and intent for this specific standard. 5. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant explains that retaining the buildings will allow for continued hobby farming of the site which is in accordance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan’s guiding principal to provide “protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcoran’s quality of life.” Additionally, the Rural/Ag Residential land use designation applies to this property. It is intended for this area to remain rural, which includes hobby farms. The Council could agree that the variance is in harmony with the City’s goal to maintain rural character as well as the land use designation envisioned for the property. The Council could also find that the encroachments within setbacks and the wetland buffer in addition to exceeding the allowable footprint for accessory structures do not protect natural resources or open spaces. 6. The City may impose conditions on the variance to address the impact of the variance. Page 11 of 13 If the Council is compelled by the applicant’s narrative, then conditions can be applied to the approval as long as they are in direct relation to the identified impacts of the request. The Planning Commission and staff recommend the following compromise in this instance: a. Removal of Shed E, Shed H, and the Quonset on Lot 3 as offered by the applicant. This will reduce the footprint to 9,604 square feet and removes the need for a variance to the wetland buffer and setback on Lot 3. b. Removal of Shed C on Lot 2. The removal of this shed would bring the accessory structure footprint for Lot 2 into compliance at 2,177 square feet. a. If the Council chooses to grant the size variance to allow Shed C, staff recommends that it be relocated outside of the wetland buffer and setback. c. Relocate Shed A on Lot 2 outside of the wetland buffer and wetland setback. d. Relocate the Playhouse on Lot 2 to comply with the 20’ side setback. e. If the Council chooses to recommend that some, or all, of the structures remain in the wetland buffer and setback, staff recommends increasing the buffer elsewhere on the site as suggested in the Engineering Memo. Final Plat Staff reviewed the final plat application for consistency with the preliminary plat, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments from the memo dated April 22, 2022, included review of the final plat. Compliance with this memo is required as a condition of approval in the final plat resolution. Well The applicant provided that he is working with the MN Dept of Health to approve a separate well on Lot 2. A condition of approval of the final plat is that the preliminary plat must be updated to show the approved well location and required setback prior to the release of the final plat for recording with Hennepin County. In the event a viable well location is not possible on Lot 2, City staff finds a shared well agreement to be acceptable. A shared well agreement would need to be reviewed by the City Attorney and finalized prior to release of the final plat. The flexibility for the applicant to pursue either option is provided in the resolutions for the preliminary and final plat. Accessory Structures Conditions of approval for the preliminary plat and variance approval as forwarded by the Planning Commission include the following changes to the accessory structures on the site: a. Removal of Shed E, Shed H, and the Quonset on Lot 3. b. Removal of Shed C on Lot 2. Page 12 of 13 c. Relocate Shed A on Lot 2 outside of the wetland buffer and wetland setback. d. Relocate the Playhouse on Lot 2 to comply with the 20’ side setback. The final plat does not include structures, so the preliminary plat will need to be revised to show the required changes if this is required by Council. The buildings will need to be demolished as part of a Site Improvement Performance Agreement (SIPA). Wetlands Final plats do not show setbacks or wetland monument signs. The preliminary plat must be revised to meet the wetland monument sign requirements in addition to showing the 15’ wetland setback. Additionally, the installation of all required signs will be a condition of approval for the final plat. Park Dedication Park dedication is required for the new lot created in FIRA. The applicant will be required to pay cash-in-lieu of land based on the adopted fee schedule at the time of final plat recording. Drainage and Utility Easements The final plat reflects the new drainage and utility (D&U) easements of 15’ along County Road 50 and 10’ along the remaining interior property lines. The final plat includes the existing D&U easements on 7320 Rolling Hills Rd that cover the wetland and wetland buffers in addition to the established 15’ easement along Rolling Hills Rd and 10’ D&U easement along the interior lot lines to the north on Lot 2 and south on Lot 3. Finally, the final plat shows the new 10’ D&U easement along the shared lot line of Lot 2 and Lot 3. Site Improvement Performance Agreement A SIPA will be required to cover the following lot improvements: a. Demolition and relocation of the accessory structures as required. b. Installation of lot corner monuments c. Installation of wetland buffer monuments. d. Restoration and re-seeding of the site after demolition and relocation of the accessory structures. A rough draft of the SIPA is enclosed. A financial security will be submitted based on the estimates obtained by the applicant to complete the above improvements. Finalization of this agreement with the City Attorney can be handled as a condition of approval of the final plat. Summary Staff finds that the proposed preliminary and final plat are generally consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance. However, several variances will be required for the existing accessory structures to remain as-is Page 13 of 13 on the property. If the variances are not granted as requested, several buildings will need to be removed and/or moved as a condition of approval for the preliminary and final plat. If the Council finds the applicant has satisfied the burden of proof for all or some of the requested variances, staff recommends several conditions to mitigate the impact of permanently allowing excessive footprints and/or setback encroachments on the proposed parcels. All other outstanding concerns are addressed with conditions of approval in the approving resolutions. 6. Recommendation The City Council should move to approve the following: - Resolution 2022-58 approving the preliminary plat for “FIRA” and partially approves the variance request to allow excessive accessory structure space on Lot 3. - Resolution 2022-69 approving the final plat for “FIRA.” If City Council finds that the standards have not been met for any of the variance request, then they will want to consider the alternative resolution prepared for the Planning Commission (provided as attachment #3 of this report) which approves the preliminary plat for “FIRA” but denies the entire variance request. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2022-58 Approving the Preliminary Plat and Approving a Variance 2. Resolution 2022-69 Approving the Final Plat for “FIRA” 3. Alternative Resolution 2022-58 Approving the Preliminary Plat and Denying the Variances 4. Site Location Map 5. 2040 Land Use Map 6. Natural Resources Inventory Map 7. Hennepin County Natural Resources Map 8. Preliminary Plat of Rush Creek Run dated 10/08/18 9. Preliminary Plat of FIRA and Survey dated 04/04/2022 10. Final Plat of FIRA dated 04/14/2022 11. Applicant’s Narrative dated 04/12/2022 12. City Engineer’s Memo dated 04/22/2022 13. Draft Site Improvement Performance Agreement City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 1 of 5 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “FIRA” ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7320 ROLLING HILLS ROAD AND 22105 COUNTY ROAD 50 (PID 28-119-23- 23-0002; 28-119-23-21-0001) (CITY FILE NO. 22-002) WHEREAS, Anteneh Zewde (“the applicant”) requested approval of a preliminary plat to allow for a three lot subdivision on property described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval of variances from the accessory structure size and location requirements, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the submitted preliminary plat and variances at a duly called Public Hearing, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a preliminary plat subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A preliminary plat is approved, in accordance with the plans received by the City on April 4, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The requested variances from the accessory structure and wetland setback requirements are denied based on the following findings: a. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The landowner could relocate the existing accessory structures in order to comply with the Ordinance. It appears that the request for the variance is primarily economic based on the landowner’s desire to avoid relocation costs; however, both the MN Statute §462.357 and the Ordinance state that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. b. The conditions upon which the variance is requested are not unique to the parcel and are caused by the landowner. There is no physical reason why the structures cannot be relocated to meet the setback requirements. The proposed encroachment of the side setback for the Playhouse on Lot 2 is a result of the proposed lot line requested by the landowner. c. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The structures are rural in nature. d. The variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The wetland buffer and wetland setback are established to maintain water quality and the health of wetlands. Bypassing these requirements fails to uphold the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve natural resources and maintain a high standard of environmental quality. Lot setbacks City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 2 of 5 for accessory structures are meant to protect visual appeal of the area. Bypassing this requirement is not in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. e. The variance to allow structures to encroach within setbacks and the wetland buffer is not consistent with the guiding principal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcroan's quality of life. 3. A variance allowing an accumulated footprint of accessory structures up to 9,604 square feet is approved on Lot 3 based on the following findings: a. That there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant intends to continue utilizing the existing structures to support hobby farming, which is a reasonable use. Removing all of the otherwise functional buildings to comply with the limited footprint permitted in City Code will inhibit the landowner’s ability to maintain the existing hobby farming operations on the site. b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variation is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and were not created by the landowner. The property is unique in that a second house was previously built as a part of the original 60-acre farmstead. The two homes were retained on a single parcel platted as a part of Rush Creek Run. However, the property truly functions as two parcels with two separate households, separate driveways, separate mailing addresses, and most of the utilities separated besides a shared well. These conditions were not created by the current landowner as these structures and lot lines were established by a previous landowner. c. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are no physical changes proposed to the structures. The use of the structures for primarily hobby farming is consistent with the rural character of the locality. d. The proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance to conserve the rural character of the Corcoran countryside. e. The variance is consistent with one of the guiding principals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to protect the rural character that defines Corcoran’s quality of life. The variance is in harmony with the Rural/Ag Residential land use designation intended to allow uses such as hobby farms. f. The City identifies the following conditions of approval to address the impact of the variance: i. Removal of Shed E and Shed H on Lot 3. This will reduce the degree of nonconformity to a reasonable amount of accessory structure space to be permanently protected by the variance. ii. Removal of the Quonset on Lot 3. This reduces the degree of nonconformity in the size of the accessory structure footprint granted by the City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 3 of 5 variance. Additionally, removal of the Quonset from the wetland buffer will reduce negative impacts to the wetland and water quality. iii. Removal of Shed C on Lot 2. This will bring the lot into compliance for size requirements while reducing negative impacts to the wetland and water quality. iv. Relocation of Shed A on Lot 2 outside of the wetland buffer and setback. This will reduce negative impacts to the wetland and water quality. 4. There are 11 development rights remaining on Lot 1, Block 1 after the land is platted. 5. The applicant shall comply with comments in the City Engineer’s memo dated April 22, 2022. 6. As referenced on the preliminary plat, the Playhouse on Lot 2 must be relocated to meet accessory structure location and setback requirements in Section 1030.020, Subd. 3. 7. The approval is subject to the review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Health of the shared well between Lot 2 and Lot 3. If the shared well is not approved, an approved location for a well on Lot 2 is required. 8. The preliminary plat must be revised to show: a. Required wetland buffer monument signs as provided in the preliminary plat for Rush Creek Run and based on the new property line between Lot 2 and Lot 3. b. The required 15-foot wetland buffer setback per Section 1050.010, Subd. 5 (C). c. The reolocation of the Playhouse and Shed A on Lot 2. d. The removal of Shed C on Lot 2. e. The removal of Shed E, Shed H, and the Quonset on Lot 3. 9. Prior to demolition and reolocation of the accessory structure buildings, erosion control measures must be installed to protect the wetlands as approved by Public Works and Engineering. 10. Prior to release of the final plat for recording, the applicant must: a. Provide proof of approval of the shared well by the MN Department of Health. i. If approved, a shared well agreement must be provided for review and approval by the City Attorney. ii. If not approved, the preliminary plat must be revised to reflect an approved well location on Lot 2. b. The applicant shall enter into a site improvement performance agreement and submit a financial guarantee for the proposed work as outlined in Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 4 of 5 c. Park dedication shall be due for the one new lot and shall be cash-in-lieu of land, subject to the park dedication fees adopted at the time of the final plat is released for filing. 11. Prior to release of the escrow and financial guarantee: a. The identified accessory structures in paragraphs 3f and 6 of this resolution must be removed or relocated. b. The applicant must restore and seed the site after demolition and relocation of the accessory structures. c. Lot monuments must be installed. d. Wetland buffer monuments must be installed. e. The approving resolutions, mylar and all related documents must be recorded at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 12. Approval of the preliminary plat shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of a final plat. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A The East Three Fourths of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of County Road Number 50. AND Lot 4, Block 2, RUSH CREEK RUN, Hennpin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-69 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “FIRA” ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7320 ROLLING HILLS ROAD AND 22105 COUNTY ROAD 50 (PID 28-119-23- 23-0002; 28-119-23-21-0001) (CITY FILE NO. 22-002) WHEREAS, Anteneh Zewde (“the applicant”) requested approval of a final plat to allow for a three lot subdivision on property described as follows: See Attachment A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a final plat subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A final plat is approved, in accordance with the plans received by the City on April 14, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. There are 11 development rights remaining on Lot 1, Block 1 after the land is platted. 3. The applicant shall comply with comments in the City Engineer’s memo dated April 22, 2022. 4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements and conditions of approval outlined for the preliminary plat in Resolution 2022-58. 5. The approval is subject to the review and approval by the Minnesota Department of Health of the shared well between Lot 2 and Lot 3. If the shared well is not approved, an approved location for a well on Lot 2 is required. 6. Prior to demolition and reolocation of the existing accessory structure buildings, erosion control measures must be installed to protect the wetlands as approved by Public Works and Engineering. 7. Prior to release of the final plat for recording, the applicant must: a. Provide the revised preliminary plat as required in Resolution 2022-58. b. Provide proof of either an approved well location on Lot 2 or approval of the shared well by the MN Department of Health. i. If a new well location is approved on Lot 2, the preliminary plat must be revised to reflect the approved well location and setback. ii. If a shared well is approved, a shared well agreement must be provided for review and approval by the City Attorney. c. The applicant must provide cost estimates for the required site improvements for review and approval by the City engineer. These costs will be used in the Site Improvement Performance Agreement. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-69 Page 2 of 3 d. The applicant shall enter into a Site Improvement Performance Agreement and submit a financial guarantee for the proposed work as outlined in Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. e. Park dedication shall be due for the one new lot and shall be cash-in-lieu of land, subject to the park dedication fees adopted at the time of the final plat is released for filing. 8. Prior to release of the escrow and financial guarantee: a. The accessory structures must be removed or relocated as required in Resolution 2022-58. b. The applicant must restore and seed the site after demolition and relocation of the accessory structures. c. Lot monuments must be installed as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. d. Wetland buffer monuments must be installed as required by Section 1050.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. e. The approving resolutions, mylar and all related documents must be recorded at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 9. The applicant must file the final plat at Hennepin County within 2 years of the date of approval or the approval shall expire. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-69 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A The East Three Fourths of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of County Road Number 50. AND Lot 4, Block 2, RUSH CREEK RUN, Hennpin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 1 of 5 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “FIRA” ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7320 ROLLING HILLS ROAD AND 22105 COUNTY ROAD 50 (PID 28-119-23- 23-0002; 28-119-23-21-0001) (CITY FILE NO. 22-002) WHEREAS, Anteneh Zewde (“the applicant”) requested approval of a preliminary plat to allow for a three lot subdivision on property described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the applicant also requested approval of variances from the accessory structure size and location requirements, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the submitted preliminary plat and variances at a duly called Public Hearing, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corcoran City Council approves the request for a preliminary plat subject to the following findings and conditions; 1. A preliminary plat is approved, in accordance with the plans received by the City on April 4, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The requested variance from the accessory structure size and location requirements is denied based on the following findings: a. There are no practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards. The landowner could remove or relocate the existing accessory structures in order to comply with the Ordinance. It is unreasonable for the newly established smaller lots to maintain the same accessory structure space established for a farmstead of 60-acres. Other properties of similar size in the Rural Residential district are allowed to keep livestock and equipment to maintain their land and are required to do so within the square footage allotted by the Ordinance. It appears that the request for the variance is primarily economic based on the landowner’s desire to avoid demolition and relocation costs; however, both the MN Statute §462.357 and the Ordinance state that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. b. The conditions upon which the variance is requested are not unique to the parcel and were created by the previous landowners. There is no physical reason why the structures cannot be removed or relocated. The structures were created by previous landowners, and the current parcel with two homes was a deliberate decision made by the previous landowner when the 60-acre farmstead was subdivided. c. Granting the variation will not alter the essential character of the locality. The structures are rural in nature. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 2 of 5 d. The variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance. The limited footprint for accessory structures is based on the size of the parcel and is meant to control impervious surface coverage on a lot. The wetland buffer and setback requirements are established to maintain water quality and the health of wetlands. Bypassing these standards fails to uphold the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve natural resources and maintain a high standard of environmental quality. Lot setbacks for accessory structures are meant to protect visual appeal of the area. The proposed encroachment into a required side setback is not in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance’s general purpose to conserve the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside. e. The variance to allow structures to encroach within setbacks and the wetland buffer in addition to exceeding the allowable footprint for accessory structures is not consistent with the guiding principal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcroan's quality of life. 3. There are 11 development rights remaining on Lot 1, Block 1 after the land is platted. 4. The applicant shall comply with comments in the City Engineer’s memo dated April 22, 2022. 5. As referenced on the preliminary plat, the following structures must be removed: a. Shed C on Lot 2. b. Shed D, Shed E, Shed G, and the Quonset on Lot 3. c. The applicant will need to decide whether to keep Shed F or Shed H on Lot 3. 6. As referenced on the preliminary plat, Shed A must be relocated to satisfy the wetland buffer strips and wetland setbacks outlined in Section 1050.010, Subd. 5(C). 7. As referenced on the preliminary plat, the Playhouse on Lot 2 must be relocated to meet accessory structure location and setback requirements in Section 1030.020, Subd. 3. 8. The approval is subject to the review and approval of the shared well between Lot 2 and Lot 3 by the Minnesota Department of Health. If the shared well is not approved, an approved location for a well on Lot 2 is required. 9. The preliminary plat must be revised to show: a. Required wetland buffer monument signs as provided in the preliminary plat for Rush Creek Run and based on the new property line between Lot 2 and Lot 3. b. The required 15-foot wetland buffer setback per Section 1050.010, Subd. 5 (C). c. The reolocation of the Playhouse and Shed A on Lot 2. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 3 of 5 d. The removal of Shed C on Lot 2. e. The removal of Shed D, Shed E, Shed G, and the Quonset on Lot 3. f. The removal of either Shed F or Shed H on Lot 3. 10. Prior to demolition and reolocation of the accessory structure buildings, erosion control measures must be installed to protect the wetlands as approved by Public Works and Engineering. 11. Prior to release of the final plat for recording, the applicant must: a. Provide proof of approval of the shared well by the MN Department of Health. i. If approved, a shared well agreement must be provided for review and approval by the City Attorney. ii. If not approved, the preliminary plat must be revised to reflect an approved well location on Lot 2. b. The applicant shall enter into a site improvement performance agreement and submit a financial guarantee for the proposed work as outlined in Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance. c. Park dedication shall be due for the one new lot and shall be cash-in-lieu of land, subject to the park dedication fees adopted at the time of the final plat is released for filing. 12. Prior to release of the escrow and financial guarantee: a. The identified accessory structures in paragraphs 5-7 of this resolution must be removed or relocated. b. The applicant must restore and seed the site after demolition and relocation of the accessory structures. c. Lot monuments must be installed. d. Wetland buffer monuments must be installed. e. The approving resolutions, mylar and all related documents must be recorded at Hennepin County and provide proof of recording to the City. 13. Approval of the preliminary plat shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of a final plat. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 4 of 5 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan, Jeremy Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-58 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A The East Three Fourths of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of County Road Number 50. AND Lot 4, Block 2, RUSH CREEK RUN, Hennpin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. He nn epin Co u n ty L oc ate & N o tify Map Zew de S u bdi vis ion Lo cation M ap7320 R o ll ing Hi ll s R oa d22105 C ounty R oa d 5 0 0 410 820205 Feet Da te : 4/2 9/20 22 Buffer Size:Map Co mm e nts : Th is d ata (i) is furn ish ed 'AS IS' with no represen ta tion as tocompleteness or accuracy; (ii) is fu rn ish ed with n o warra nty of anykind; an d (iii) is n ot suitable for le ga l, eng ineerin g or surve yingpurposes. Hennepin County shall not b e liab le for a ny da ma ge , in ju ryor loss resu lting from this dat a. Fo r mo re inf ormation , co nta ct Hen ne pin Co un ty GI S Off ice300 6th S tree t So uth , Minn ea polis, MN 5 5487 / gis.in fo@h en ne pin.us Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Date: 4/26/2022 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 1 inch = 200 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI FEMA Floodplains - 100 Year A AE FLOODPLAIN AH AO AE FLOODWAY PID: 2811923230002Address: 7320 Rolling H ills Rd, Corcoran 55340 Owner: Anteneh Zewde Acres: 9.86 ¯ Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Date: 4/26/2022 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 1 inch = 800 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI FEMA Floodplains - 100 Year A AE FLOODPLAIN AH AO AE FLOODWAY PID: 2811923210001Address: 22105 Co Rd No 50, Corcoran 55340 Owner: Gene H Kissner Etal Acres: 118.6 ¯ 1 2 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 1BLOCK 2JUBERT LANE ROLLING HILLS ROADCOUNTY ROAD 50 BLOCK 2Project No. Revised:Checked By: Requested By: Date:Drawn By:Scale: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. 9 West Division Street Buffalo, MN 55313 (763)682-4727 Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.comdenotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe set and marked by License #40062 denotes iron monument found 10-2-17 Brian Whisney S.O.S.1"=100'P.E.O. I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. _______________________________ Paul E. Otto License #40062 Date:_____________ Preliminary Plat of RUSH CREEK RUN N Feet 0 100 200 Vicinity Map N Date 4/12/2022 Variance Narrative This variance application seeks to divide 7320 rolling hills into two Rural/Ag residential properties which will be in line with the 2040 future land use plan. This property has accessory structures which pre-date the zoning ordinance and would otherwise be protected as legal non-conforming structures if not for the intent to subdivide the parcel. This Application does not include any expansion of structures. Rather mere subdivision of property which already has two separate addresses and utilities, namely 7320 and 7310 rolling hills. The variance is required as there are buildings with charter and function that I would like to keep with the farm which is in accordance with the 2040 plan which at the core is the Protection of natural resources, open space, and rural character that define Corcoran’s quality of life. It is also in harmony with the city ordinance Adopted on September 22, 2011. “Conserving the natural, scenic beauty, rural character, and attractiveness of the Corcoran countryside” All existing trees will be preserved and no tree is on the lot line. As can be seen on the plat parcel 2 will have 5.12 acres and 3 sheds Shade A: Feed storage Shade B: Is a small caboose used for garden tool storage Shade C: livestock and farm equipment Parcel 3 will have 4.74 acres and 6 sheds Shade D: Family gathering and party room Shade E: Equipment storage. Shade F: workshop and garage Shade G: Is a barn. Plan for life stock. Shade H: Feed storage Quonset: Feed storage I am open to removing shade E, Shade H, and the Quonset if Necessary. Sincerely Anteneh Zewde Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Zewde Preliminary Plat Date: 4/22/2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Preliminary Plat of FIRA – for Tony Zewde by Otto Associates dated 3/30/2022 2. Certificate of Survey – for Tony Zewde by Otto Associates dated 10/7/2021 3. FIRA – Final Plat by Otto Associates, no date Comments: General: 1. The City process requires the applicant to submit a written response to this memorandum. Submit the written response with revised plans. 2. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to additional planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City. 3. The applicant is splitting the proposed lot and no additional improvements are shown on the preliminary plat documents. 4. The plat shows the 100-year floodplain limits. The preliminary plat figure should be updated to show the FEMA floodway through this area as well. 5. It appears that some existing buildings are shown within the floodplain but do not appear to be constructed within the regulatory floodway. 6. Wetland delineations were performed for the site. As part of the preliminary plat process, wetland buffers are required for the site, and portions of the existing buildings are shown within the proposed wetland buffers. The wetland buffers should be adjusted to be in compliance with City code requirements or the existing buildings may need to be adjusted or moved to be in compliance. End of Comments (reserved for recording information) SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT FIRA (FILE NO. 22-002) This SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) dated _________________, 2022, is entered into by and between the CITY OF CORCORAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and ANTENEH ZEWDE, an individual (the “Developer”), for FIRA, and shall be effective upon full execution by the City and the Developer. The City and the Developer are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “parties” or each a “party”. 1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve a site development plan (referred to in this Agreement as the “site plan”). The site plan is for property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, addressed at: 7320 Rolling Hills Road and 22105 Co Rd No 50, and legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, (the “Subject Property”). 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The City approved the site plan (under City Council Resolution 2022-59 dated May 26, 2022) on the condition that the Developer enter into this Agreement, furnish the security and escrow required by it, and comply with applicable ordinances, statutes, and regulations. 3. PLANS. The Subject Property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement, but are on file in the office of the City Administrator at Corcoran City Hall. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms herein shall control. Plan A: Preliminary Plat Plan B: Final Plat 4. IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and fully pay for the following required site improvements: • Removal of Shed E, Shed H, and the Quonset on Lot 3. • Removal of Shed C on Lot 2. • Relocation of Shed A on Lot 2 outside of the wetland buffer and setback. • Relocation of the Playhouse on Lot 2 to meet the required side setback. • Install Wetland Buffer Monument Signs • Install Lot Monuments Required by Minnesota Statutes • Restore and re-seed the site after demolition and relocation of the accessory structures. Any public improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specs, City Design Standards and Standard Details. For these improvements, the Developer shall submit plans and specifications that have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer to the City for approval by the City Engineer or the City Engineer’s designated representative. 5. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement and construction of all required site improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a financial guarantee (“security”) in the form of: 1) a letter of credit from a bank (pursuant to the form attached hereto as Exhibit B); or 2) a cash deposit; or 3) a combination thereof. The form of the security shall be determined by the City at its sole discretion, and shall be in the amount of $________________ (100% of the total cost of improvements, per Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance). Any bank or financial institution providing a letter of credit or other surety shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator or his/her designated representative. 6. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. All labor and work shall be performed and completed in the best and most workmanlike manner and in strict conformance with the approved plans and City Engineering Design Standards. No deviations from the approved plans will be permitted unless approved in writing by the Zoning Administrator or City Engineer or their designated representative. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City a list of contractors being considered for retention by the Developer for the performance of the work required by this Agreement. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and special conditions of this Agreement, for which reimbursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the City Engineer or their designated representative, as provided in the specifications. 7. EROSION CONTROL. Prior to initiating site grading, the erosion control plan shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. Erosion control practices must comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements which the City determines would be beneficial. All erosion control shall comply with Section 950 (Erosion Control) of the Corcoran City Code and the Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. No development, utility or street construction will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the approved erosion control plan. Further, the City shall have the authority to stop work on the Subject Property and/or withhold additional building permits or certificates of occupancy in the event that the Developer fails to comply with the approved erosion control plan. 8. STREET MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until the streets affected by the project are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on the same and to direct attention to detours. If and when streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. In the event residences are occupied prior to completing streets, the Developer shall maintain a smooth surface and provide proper surface drainage to ensure that the streets are passable to traffic and emergency vehicles. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping streets within and around the subdivision swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill, track, or wash onto the street from Developer’s operation. 9. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required site improvements by October 31st, 2022. 10. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site development. 11. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the site, including but not limited to legal (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees), planning, permitting, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval of the site plan, the preparation of this Agreement, review of construction plans and documents. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site approval, development or noncompliance with this Agreement. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys’ fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorneys’ fees. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within 30 days after receipt. Bills not paid within 30 days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. Further, the City shall have the right to access Developer’s posted security to obtain reimbursement for unpaid invoiced amounts. Should Developer’s security be insufficient to cover any amounts owed to the City and unpaid after invoicing, the City may assess such amounts against the Subject Property. Developer, on behalf of itself and it successors and assigns, hereby waives any assessment notice requirements and any right to appeal such assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429. 12. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. C. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties, and approved by the Zoning Administrator or City Engineer or their designated representative. The City’s failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer has unencumbered fee title to the Subject Property and/or has obtained consents to this Agreement, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the Subject Property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the Subject Property; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any failure to fulfill the foregoing covenants. E. Certain retaining walls will require a building permit. Retaining walls that require a building permit shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the building official evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls identified on the development plans shall be constructed before any other building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. F. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. G. Failure to fulfill the terms of this Agreement by the Developer, including nonpayment of billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of building permits and certificates of occupancy, and the halting of all work on the Subject Property. H. The Developer represents to the City that the development complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision regulations, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the development does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the development until the Developer does comply. Upon the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. I. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligations hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells the project. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in conjunction with a sale of the entire land, the Developer may, without the consent of the City, assign this Contract to a limited liability company or other entity in which the Developer or an affiliate thereof has a controlling membership or other controlling ownership interest, provided that such assignee assumes in writing the obligations of Developer under this Contract and all posted security correspondingly secures the performance of the assignee. 13. DEVELOPER’S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the Subject Property. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part to the Subject Property and the Developer, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any right to appeal said assessment. 14. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: ______________________________. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to Corcoran City Hall, or mailed to the City by certified mail to the attention of the Corcoran City Administrator at the following address: Corcoran City Hall Attn: City Administrator 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 15. ESTIMATED COSTS . ITEM Total Sanitary Sewer System $0 Watermain System $0 Stormwater System $0 Street Construction $0 Street Lighting $0 Grading/Erosion Control Landscaping/Tree Preservation Setting Iron Monuments $200 Installing Wetland Buffer Monuments* $240 SUB-TOTAL: Design, Admin, Insp, As-Builts (8%) Total: This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. If the City approves use of a letter of credit for posting of any portion of the security, the bank or financial institution which provides the same shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Agreement or upon receipt of notice that the security will be cancelled or otherwise lapse prior to the end of the required term and no City-approved replacement security has been provided. If the required improvements are not completed at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory to the City Engineer or designee that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City have been satisfied, with City Engineer or designee approval the security may be reduced from time to time by 75% of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the public improvement and landscaping amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until: (1) all improvements have been completed; (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed; and (3) all financial obligations to the City, both actual and anticipated, have been satisfied. 16. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL SURETY. Security for Improvements (Paragraph 5): $________ Engineering Escrow (Cash) $________ CITY OF CORCORAN BY: Tom McKee, Mayor (SEAL) AND Jessica Beise, Interim City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of___________________, 20___, by Tom McKee and Jessica Beise, the Mayor and Interim City Administrator of the City of Corcoran, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DEVELOPER: By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF _______________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _________________, 20___, by __________________ the _________________ of _______________________, on behalf of the ______________________. NOTARY PUBLIC EXHIBIT A (the “Subject Property”) The East Three Fourths of the Northwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of County Road Number 50. AND Lot 4, Block 2, RUSH CREEK RUN, Hennpin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. EXHIBIT B IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT TEMPLATE Letter of Credit No.: Date: TO: City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55430 RE: (*Insert project name/address) Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of _____________________________, and in your favor, our irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $_________________, for the purpose of _____________________ available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned financial institution. To draw on the Letter of Credit, the draft letter must: a. Bear the clause, “drawn under the Letter of Credit No. _____________, dated ___________, 2_____, of (Name of Bank); b. Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Corcoran. c. Be presented for payment at ___________________, on or before the expiration date of the letter of credit. d. List the reason for the draw and the cost to be drawn against the letter of credit. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MUST BE INCLUDED ON ALL LETTERS OF CREDIT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CORCORAN: This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date the financial institution delivers written notice to the City of Corcoran City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this letter of credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: City of Corcoran, Attn: City Administrator, Corcoran City Hall, 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation of Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this letter of credit shall be duly honored upon presentation if presented for payment together with the documents required herein to _______________, phone ___________, if presented before 4:00 p.m. on or before the expiration date. Presentations may be made in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested or by federal express or any other nationally recognized courier company. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 590 ("ISP98").” We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: _______________________________ Signature _______________________________ Its _______________________________ Printed Name of Signator Copy: City of Corcoran City Planner City of Corcoran City Engineer City of Corcoran City Administrator FEE OWNER CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________, fee owners of all or part of the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property owned by them. Fee Owners further consent to the recording of the Agreement against the Subject Property. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20___. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 20___, by ______________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 MORTGAGEE CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________, which holds a mortgage on the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, agrees that the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 20_____, by __________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 CONTRACT PURCHASER CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________________, which/who has a contract purchaser's interest in all or part of the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, hereby affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property in which there is a contract purchaser's interest. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 20____, by ____________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kevin Shay through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 18, 2022 for the May 26, 2022 City Council Meeting RE: Revised Development Contract for “Cook Lake Highlands” at 19220 County Road 10 (PID 25-119-23-14-0003) (City File 21-057) 1.Description of Request The applicant, Trek Real Estate and Development, Inc., is requesting approval of a revised development contract which includes the following changes: •The developer will continue to be responsible for mass grading the site and all infrastructure improvements. This includes preparing the villa lots. This updated development contract includes modified costs for the development based on revised contractor bids. The costs have been reviewed by the city engineer and accepted. •The individual site improvement costs related to improvements for the daycare, memory care and apartment sites are removed from the development contract and will be addressed through site improvement performance agreements for each site as they develop. This will include all final grading, site infrastructure (utilities and parking lot) and landscape costs. 2.Analysis of Request City staff is comfortable with the change to defer some of the financial guarantees from the development contract to a site improvement agreement when development is proposed on the lot. Requiring a site improvement performance agreement for developments preparing multiple pad ready sites to be developed at a later time by the end user represents a first for the City of Corcoran, but something we expect to see more of in the future. Staff is comfortable with addressing the costs for each site as part of a SIPA. This would not apply to single family villa lots which are addressed through the development contract. The City Engineer reviewed the modified costs from the developer and agreed with how they are broken out into the master development and costs for each individual site. 3.Recommendation Move to approve: a)Revised Development Contract Attachments 1.Revised Development Contract Agenda Item: 8b. (reserved for recording information) DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) COOK LAKE HIGHLANDS This DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (this “Contract”) dated ____________________, 2022, is entered into by and between the CITY OF CORCORAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and Trek Real Estate and Development, Inc. (the “Developer”) and shall be effective upon full execution by the City and the Developer. The City and the Developer are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “parties” or each a “party”. 1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Cook Lake Highlands (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is legally described in the attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”). 2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL. The Developer shall enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat upon City approval with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. 3. RIGHT TO PROCEED. Unless separate written approval has been given by the City, within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Administrative Services Director, 2) the necessary security has been received by the City, 3) the plat, development contract and other associated documents have been recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office and proof of recording has been provided to the City, and 4) the City has authorized the Developer to proceed, in writing. However, the Developer may be allowed to begin grading the site when items 1, 2 and 4 of the previous sentence have been satisfied. 4. PHASED DEVELOPMENT. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has failed to fulfill all obligations in this Contract and the failure has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks. - 2 – 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless the initial phase is final platted into lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval. 6. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved final plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, in the event that changes to federal or state law prohibit or limit the City’s authority to collect the costs of off-site improvements for this project as contemplated in Section 9 herein and the parties do not mutually agree to remain bound to the terms contemplated in said Section 9, the City shall have the right to substitute off-site improvement cost collection provisions which are: 1) in compliance with applicable law; and 2) which result in reasonably comparable cost contribution from the Developer. 7. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms herein shall control. The plans are: Exhibit A – Legal Description Plan A – Final Plat, dated _____ Plan B – Final Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, dated _____ Plan C – Final Sanitary Sewer, Watermain and Storm Sewer Plan, dated ____ Plan D – Final Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan, dated _____ Plan E– Final Landscape Plan, dated _____ Plan F – Permanent Traffic Control Plan, dated _____ Plan F– Revised Preliminary Plat, dated ____ 8. IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and pay for, without limitation, all of the following improvements: • Streets • Sanitary Sewer • Watermain • Surface Water Facilities (pipe, ponds, rain gardens, etc.) • Grading and Erosion Control • Sidewalks/Trails • Street Lighting • Underground Utilities • Street Signs and Traffic Control Signs • Landscaping • Tree Preservation • Wetland Mitigation and Buffers • Monuments Required by Minnesota Statutes • Miscellaneous Facilities - 3 – In addition to the above-listed improvements, Developer shall be responsible for all other costs necessary to construct the improvements pursuant to the City-approved plans. The Developer shall submit plans which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer to the City for approval by the City Engineer or designee. The Developer may instruct its engineer to provide full-time field inspection personnel in order for the Developer's engineer to be able to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer, its contractors and subcontractors, shall follow all instructions received from the City's inspectors. The Developer and/or the Developer’s engineer shall provide for on-site project management. The Developer's engineer is responsible for design changes and contract administration between the Developer and the Developer's contractor. The Developer or his or her engineer shall schedule a pre- construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at City Hall with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. All labor and work shall be performed and completed in the best and most workmanlike manner and in strict conformance with the approved plans and City Engineering Design Standards. No deviations from the approved plans and Standards will be permitted unless authorized by the City Engineer or designee. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City a list of contractors being considered for retention by the Developer for the performance of the work required by the contract. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and special conditions of this contract, for which reimbursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first approved in writing by the City Engineer or designee. The Developer shall be responsible for construction of all improvements in conformance with the approved plans, City Engineering Design Standards and Standard Details. 9. OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The City intends to make improvements to County Road 10 at the intersection of the future 74th Avenue providing access to the site. The public improvements are more fully detailed in the Feasibility Study dated May 29, 2020, prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. The developer agrees to fund off-site improvements as noted in this Contract. a. The following improvements are required with Cook Lake Highlands. The City shall design, bid and manage the projects and the developer shall pay for the following improvement, which shall be paid at the time the final plat is released for recording: • The developer shall provide a financial guarantee to the City for the cost of the County Road 10 improvements (estimated at $850,000) including the construction of the turn lane into the development and access road through the intersection of 73rd Ave. The road corridor will be graded to the subgrade elevation with the development grading and the city project will include the construction of the roadways and storm sewer systems. The utility relocations will be completed by the developer as part of the site improvements. The development contract will include $775,000 in the letter of credit and $75,000 cash escrow for design. When the City bids the project, the City will reduce the letter of credit by $775,000 and require the developer to provide cash escrow based on the final bid amount. If Hennepin County, the City of Maple Grove or the Metropolitan Council financially participates in the project, the financial guarantee from the developer would be offset by these other funds. - 4 – b. The developer agrees to pay the City the cost of these improvements as outlined above. The City will notify the developer of required reimbursement under this paragraph for design and construction of such improvements. The costs to be reimbursed include the actual cost to the City for construction of the improvements plus the allocation of the engineering, legal, administrative and other similar costs of the project based on the relative construction costs of the improvements. The developer reserves the right to be refunded for any unused portion of the estimated cost versus the actual cost of each improvement. c. The developer agrees to pay the City the cost to manage runoff from the City of Corcoran through a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Maple Grove. 10. CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS. City Council members, City employees, and City Planning Commission members, and corporations, partnerships, and other entities in which such individuals have greater than a 25% ownership interest or in which they are an officer or director may not act as contractors or subcontractors for the public improvements identified in Paragraph 8 above. 11. PERMITS. The Developer shall obtain or require its contractors and subcontractors to obtain all necessary permits, including but not limited to: • Hennepin County for County Road Access and Work in County Rights-of-Way • Minnesota Department of Health for Watermains/Wells • NPDES Permits • MPCA for Sanitary Sewer and Hazardous Material Removal and Disposal • DNR for Dewatering and Work in Protected Waters • City of Corcoran for Building Permits and Building Demolition • MCES for Sanitary Sewer Connections • Watershed Permits 12. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required public improvements in this phase by October 31, 2023, with the exception of the final wear course of asphalt on streets. The City will not accept new public streets in Cook Lake Highlands until 80% of the homes in Cook Lake Highlands have received a certificate of occupancy and the streets have weathered a full winter season. Final wear course placement outside of this time frame must have the written approval of the City Engineer. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 13. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 14. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. Haul routes for vehicles used in transport of materials shall be designated by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has discretion to change the designated haul routes at any time in event of unforeseen circumstances. This Agreement may be terminated and all work on the Subject Property may be halted by the City for Developer’s failure to use the designated haul routes or for any other violation of this Agreement. - 5 – 15. GRADING PLAN. The plat shall be graded in accordance with the approved grading drainage and erosion control plan, Plan "B". The plan shall conform to City of Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. 16. EROSION CONTROL. Prior to initiating site grading, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. Erosion control practices must comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements which the City determines would be beneficial. The City is an MS4 City and all erosion control shall comply with the Corcoran City Code and the Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. No development, utility or street construction will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the approved erosion control plan. Further, the City shall have the authority to stop work on the Subject Property and/or withhold additional building permits or certificates of occupancy in the event that the Developer fails to comply with the approved erosion control plan. 17. STREET MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until the streets affected by the project are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on the same and to direct attention to detours. If and when streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. In the event residences are occupied prior to completing streets, the Developer shall maintain a smooth surface and provide proper surface drainage to ensure that the streets are passable to traffic and emergency vehicles. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping streets within and without the subdivision swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill, track, or wash onto the street from Developer’s operation. 18. OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS. Upon completion of the work and construction required by this Contract and acceptance of the work by the City, the public improvements lying within public easements or right-of-way shall become City property. This provision shall not apply to private improvements (e.g. private retaining walls) which encroach upon public easement or right-of-way, and such encroachments shall be subject to any applicable and separate encroachment agreement. Prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City, the Developer must furnish the following affidavits: • Record Drawings • Certification from the Registered Land Surveyor that land corner monuments and wetland buffer signs have been installed according to the approved plans. • The warranty/performance financial guarantee 19. PARK DEDICATION. The Developer shall dedicate to the City the park as shown on the preliminary plat. The Developer shall also dedicate to the City the trail easements identified on the preliminary plat, except as modified by the approving resolutions and construct all trails as shown on the plans. The developer shall construct the bituminous trails in the subdivision and shall work with the city on the final location within the public park. No credit shall be given for trail construction. Credit shall be given for the net area of the park land and trail easement area. The remainder of the required park dedication shall be satisfied with cash-in-lieu of land. Park dedication shall be obtained based on the phase being platted. Cook Lake Highlands will have a combination of park land dedication and cash-in-lieu of land. Prior to release of the final plat, the Developer shall satisfy the park dedication requirements for this - 6 – phase by a cash contribution of $336,407.00. The charge was calculated in accordance with Section 955 of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance as follows: 100 multifamily units x $3,141.00 ($314,100.00) plus (27 memory care units / 146) x $4,498 ($17,809.00) plus 1 daycare facility x $4,498 ($4,498.00) = $336,407.00. 20. WATERMAIN / STORAGE TRUNK LINE AREA CHARGE (TLAC). This plat is subject to a watermain/storage trunk line area charge (TLAC). The charge is calculated as follows: 21.56 net acres (based on pre-developable area) $7,475.00 per acre = $161,161.00. Future phases shall be cash with the final plat for each future phase subject to the then-current rates. 21. WATER CONNECTION CHARGE. This plat is subject to a water connection charge calculated as follows: 19 single family units x $1,219.00 per unit ($23,161.00) plus 100 multifamily units x $975.00 ($97,500.00) plus 27 memory care units x $975.00 ($26,325.00) plus 1 daycare x $1,219 ($1,219.00) = $148,205.00. The fees shall be paid at the time of building permit. Future development shall be cash at the time of issuance of each building permit at the then-current rates. The developer will be responsible for payment of the then-current water connection charge set by the City of Maple Grove. 22. SANITARY SEWER TRUNK LINE AREA CHARGE (TLAC). This plat is subject to a sanitary sewer trunk line area charge (TLAC). The charge is calculated as follows: The charge is calculated as follows: 21.56 net acres (based on pre-developable area) x $7,189.00 per acre = $154,994.84. Future phases shall be cash with the final plat for each future phase subject to the then-current rates. The developer will also be responsible for payment of the then-current SAC fee set by the Metropolitan Council. The applicant must provide a SAC determination from the Metropolitan Council and fees will be based on that determination. 23. SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION CHARGE. This plat is subject to a sanitary sewer connection charge calculated as follows: 19 single family units x $1,219.00 per unit ($23,161.00) plus 100 multifamily units x $975.00 per unit ($97,500.00) plus 27 memory care units x $975.00 ($26,325.00) plus 1 daycare x $1,219 ($1,219.00) = $148,205.00. The fees shall be paid at the time of building permit. Future development shall be cash at the time of issuance of each building permit at the then-current rates. 24. BUILDING PERMITS/CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. A. Prior to issuance of building permits other than the model home; utilities, curbing and one lift of bituminous shall be installed on public streets. B. Utilities shall be installed and reasonable access to the lot from a public street shall be provided prior to issuance of a model home permit. Once model home will be allowed per product type (single family, twin home, townhome, etc.) per development and shall be on lots acceptable to the City. C. No sewer and water connection permits may be issued until the utilities are tested and approved by the City Engineer. D. The Developer shall comply with the City of Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. - 7 – E. Prior to issuance of building permits, wetland buffer monuments shall be placed in accordance with the City’s zoning ordinance. Monument signs shall be purchased from the City. The land surveyor must certify that the wetland buffer signs have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. F. Failure to fulfill any of the terms of this Contract by the Developer, including nonpayment of billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties, the halting of all work in the plat, and/or the denial of certificates of occupancy. G. If building permits are issued prior to the acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer, their contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents, or third parties. No sewer and water connection permits may be issued until the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the utilities are tested and approved by the City Engineer. 25. STREET REGULATORY SIGNS/TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS. Street name signs shall be installed by the Developer in accordance with the City of Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. The Developer shall install traffic control signs in accordance with the plan approved by the City Engineer and Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. All signs must be installed prior to final building inspection approval or earlier if necessary as determined by the City Engineer. 26. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION AND OPERATION COSTS. The developer shall pay for and install all street lights. The street light shall be of a design approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for street light operation and maintenance costs until such time as the City accepts the public street where the streetlights are located. After the acceptance the City shall be responsible for all costs, subject to the street lighting policy. The costs of operation are dependent upon the operation costs for Wright Hennepin Electric under contract franchise with the City of Corcoran. 27. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat, including but not limited to legal (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees), planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the plat, the preparation of this Contract, review of construction plans and documents, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. The City may require Developer to post funds in an escrow account, at its discretion. In the event the cash escrow amount is insufficient, Developer shall post additional escrow funds as determined by the City Planner within ten (10) days of written demand. Failure to make payment of the additional escrow amount shall permit the City to supplement those amounts from any other sureties posted by Developer. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. - 8 – C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees. D. The Developer shall pay, or cause to be paid when due, and in any event before any penalty is attached, all special assessments referred to in this contract. This is a personal obligation of the Developer and shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year. Further, the City shall have the right to access Developer’s posted security to obtain reimbursement for unpaid invoiced amounts. Should Developer’s security be insufficient to cover any amounts owed to the City and unpaid after invoicing, the City may assess such amounts against the Subject Property. Developer, on behalf of itself and it successors and assigns, hereby waives any assessment notice requirements and any right to appeal such assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429. F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special assessments may be imposed such as but not limited to sewer availability charges ("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees. 28. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. The following special provisions shall apply to plat development: A. Compliance with the conditions of the original approvals, including the Preliminary PUD plan (Resolution 2021-84), the Preliminary Plat (Resolution 2021-85), PUD Final Development Plan (Resolution 2022-22) and Final Plat approval (Resolution 2022-23) is required. B. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall convey the Park to the City by warranty deed, free and clear of any and all encumbrances. Before the City signs the final plat, the developer shall convey the required trail easements to the City in a form satisfactory to the City. C. The Developer shall post a $2,400.00 security for the final placement of interior subdivision iron monuments at property corners. The security was calculated as follows: 24 lots at $100.00 per lot. The security will be held by the City until the Developer's land surveyor certifies that all irons have been set following site grading and utility and street construction. In addition, the certificate of survey must also include a certification that all irons for a specific lot have either been found or set prior to the issuance of a building permit for that lot. D. The Developer must obtain a sign permit from the City Building Official prior to installation of any subdivision identification signs. E. The Developer shall include the “City of Corcoran’s Standard Detail” (all applicable sections) in the contract documents of their improvement project. F. This development covers mass grading and infrastructure required for the development, including the villa homes on Lots 1-19, Block 3 to proceed. Prior to the development of Lot 1, Block 1 (Daycare), Lot 2, Block 1 (Memory Care) and Lot 1, Block 2 (Apartment) the developer - 9 – must enter into a Site Improvement Performance Agreement (SIPA) and provide the required financial guaranteed. 29. MISCELLANEOUS. A. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in conjunction with a sale of the entire land, the Developer may, without the consent of the City, assign this Contract to a limited liability company or other entity in which the Developer or an affiliate thereof has a controlling membership or other controlling ownership interest, provided that such assignee assumes in writing the obligations of Developer under this Contract and all posted security correspondingly secures the performance of the assignee. B. Certain retaining walls will require a Building Permit. Retaining walls that require a building permit shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the Building Official evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls identified on the development plans or by special conditions referred to in this Contract shall be constructed before any other building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. C. Appropriate legal documents including, but not limited to, those regarding Homeowner Association documents, conservation easements, covenants and restrictions, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the Final Plat. D. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. E. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. G. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer has fee title to the property being final platted and/or has obtained consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property being final platted; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for failure to fulfill any of the foregoing covenants. H. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to - 10 – City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. I. The Developer represents to the City that the plat complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. J. The Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original. K. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all issues relating to this Contract and any action brought to enforce rights or obligations herein shall be brought in Hennepin County, Minnesota. L. All exhibits, plan documents, City approval documents, and City planning or engineering memos referenced herein are hereby incorporated into and shall become a part of this Contract as if attached hereto. M. Upon completion of construction, the Developer shall provide the City with as-built records of all soil corrections and utility infrastructure installations made by the Developer on the Subject Property or within any affected public right-of-way. N. Upon completion of installation of the same (as applicable), any sanitary sewer installed on the Subject Property shall be televised at the Developer’s expense and the Developer shall submit a recording of the same to the City for the City’s records. O. The Developer shall install railings adjacent to slopes on the Subject Property in compliance with the building code, as determined by the Building Official. 30. DEVELOPER’S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the Subject Property. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part to the Subject Property and the Developer, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any right to appeal said assessment. 31. WARRANTY/PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit or performance bond for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements. - 11 – A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work. B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to one (1) year from the date of final written acceptance, unless the wearing course is placed during the same construction season as the bituminous base course. In those instances, the Developer shall guarantee all work, including street construction, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, material and equipment for a period of two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work. C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season following installation. Following construction, a certification signed by the design landscape architect shall be filed with the City evidencing that the sod, trees, and landscaping was installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 32. SUMMARY OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit, in a form acceptable to the City, from a bank, cash escrow or a combination cash escrow and Letter of Credit ("security") for $3,588,917.76, which represents 100 percent of the estimated cost of the Improvements. The letter of credit shall include an automatic renewal clause. The letter of credit shall guarantee to the City the construction and satisfactory completion of all items to be completed by the developer; that the letter of credit shall be reduced from time to time as work is performed and accepted in a satisfactory manner; that the City Engineer may reduce the letter of credit to the amount reasonably estimated by the City Engineer to be necessary to cover the remaining construction obligations; however, the letter of credit shall not be reduced below the amount estimated by the City to cover all obligations of development including payment of costs and expenses incurred by the City for legal, engineering, planning and any other costs until a maintenance bond for period of one year, satisfactory to the City Attorney and the City Engineer has been provided by the Developer or its subcontractor. As noted in Section 28(F) additional financial guarantees shall be required prior to issuance of building permits on Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2. - 12 – The amount of the security was calculated as follows: ESTIMATED COSTS ITEM City Project (1) Developer Installed (2) Total Sanitary Sewer System $411,835.00 $411,835.00 Watermain System $420,905.00 $420,905.00 Stormwater System $243,945.00 $243,945.00 Street Construction $775,000.00 $565,205.00 $1,340,205.00 Street Lighting $40,000.00 $40,000.00 Grading/Erosion Control $621,013.00 $621,013.00 Sidewalk/Trail $124,798.00 $124,798.00 Landscaping/Tree Preservation $107,321.00 $107,321.00 Setting Iron Monuments $5,900.00 $5,900.00 Installing Wetland Buffer Monuments* $3,150.00 $3,150.00 SUB-TOTAL: $775,000.00 $2,548,072.00 $3,323,072.00 City Design, Inspection and Administration (8%) $203,845.76 $265,845.76 Total: $775,000.00 $2,751,917.76 $3,588,917.76 Total Project Cost $3,588,917.76 (1) Public Improvement/City Project. City to own and maintain after development complete. (2) Developer Installed Public Improvements. City to own and maintain after development complete. This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. If a letter of credit is used to post any portion of the security, the bank shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Contract or upon receipt of notice that the security will be cancelled or otherwise lapse prior to the end of the required term and no City- approved replacement security has been provided. If the required public improvements are not completed at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory to the City Engineer or designee that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City have been satisfied, with City Engineer or designee approval the security may be reduced from time to time by 75% of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the public improvement and landscaping amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until: (1) all improvements have been completed; (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed; (3) all financial obligations to the City, both actual and anticipated, have been satisfied; (4) the required "record" plans have been received by the City; (5) a warranty security is provided; and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City. 33. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Developer shall take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained until six months after the City’s acceptance of the public improvements: A. Commercial general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, competed operations and contractual liability insurance) together with an - 13 – Owner’s Contractor’s Policy with limits against bodily injury, including death, and property damage (to include, but not be limited to damages caused by erosion or flooding) which may arise out of Developer’s work or the work of any of its subcontractors. B. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $750,000.00 for one person and $1,500,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $2,000,000.00 for each occurrence. C. Worker’s compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, if applicable. D. Developer shall file a Certificate of Insurance with the City Administrator prior to commencing site grading. The City and the City Engineer shall be named as Additional Insureds on a primary and non-contributory basis on the Certificate. The Certificate shall be modified to bear the following language: Should any of the above policies be canceled, materially changed, or not renewed before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company shall give thirty (30) days written notice of the same to the Certificate Holder. In the event of cancellation due to non-payment, ten (10) day’s written notice shall be given to the Certificate Holder. Developer shall be responsible for providing the above language to its insurer. The City does not warranty that these amounts will be sufficient to cover all Developer liability related to the work on the Subject Property and Developer shall be responsible for conducting its own analysis of the appropriate levels of coverage. 34. SUMMARY OF CASH REQUIREMENTS. The following is a summary of the cash requirements under this Contract which must be furnished to the City at the time of final plat approval: Water Supply Trunk line area charge (TLAC) $ 161,161.00 Sanitary Sewer Trunk line area charge (TLAC) 154,994.84 Park Dedication 336,407.00 Engineering Design Escrow 75,000.00 Engineering Escrow 75,000.00 TOTAL CASH REQUIREMENTS LEVIED: $ 727,562.84 35. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: _______________________________ _135 Crabapple Lane_____________ _Excelsior, MN 55331_____________ - 14 – Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: Corcoran City Hall, 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340. The Developer shall notify the City within five (5) days of change of address. [Signatures on pages to follow] CITY OF CORCORAN: BY: ______________________________________ Tom McKee, Mayor (SEAL) AND _____________________________________ Jessica Beise, Interim City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ________________, 20____, by Tom McKee and by Jessica Beise, the Mayor and Interim City Administrator of the City of Corcoran, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. ______________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DEVELOPER: By: ______________________________________ Its: ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of ________________, 20____, by __________________________________ the ____________________________________ of ______________________________________ on its behalf. ______________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 EXHIBIT A (the “Subject Property”) All that part of Section 25, Township 199, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follow: All that part of the East ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ lying North of County Road No. 10; the East ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ and commencing at the Northwest corner of the East ½ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of said Section; thence parallel with the East line of said Section 1085 feet; thence at right angles West 557.7 feet; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to place of beginning. EXCEPT that part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 25, Township 119, Range 23 Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 01 degrees 09 minutes 16 seconds West, along the East line of said East Half of Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 50.58 feet; thence South 88 degrees 50 minutes 44 seconds West 168.59 feet to the West line of the East 168.59 feet of said East Half of Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the point of beginning; thence continuing South 88 degrees 50 minutes 44 seconds West 305.00 feet; thence South 01 degrees 09 minutes 16 seconds East 175.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 50 minutes 41 seconds East 305.00 feet to said West line of the East 168.59 feet; thence North 01 degrees 09 minutes 16 seconds West, along last said line, a distance of 175.00 feet to the point of beginning. FEE OWNER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT _______________________________________________________, fee owners of all or part of the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property owned by them. Fee Owners further consent to the recording of the Agreement against the Subject Property. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2____, by ______________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 MORTGAGEE CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT _______________________________________________________, which holds a mortgage on the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 2_____, by __________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 CONTRACT PURCHASER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT _______________________________________________________________, which/who has a contract purchaser's interest in all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, hereby affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property in which there is a contract purchaser's interest. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 2____, by ____________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 8c. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 19, 2022 for the May 26, 2022 City Council Meeting RE: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for “Rush Creek Reserve” (city file no. 22-025) REVIEW DEADLINE: June 10, 2022 1.Description of Request The applicant, M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul, LLC, has submitted a request for approval of a PUD amendment to allow reduced side yard setbacks for the twin home and townhome portions of the development. Key plan application materials are attached as part of this packet; however, due to size limitations not every item is included. The complete application is available at city hall. 2. Background In the Summer of 2014, the Council reviewed a concept plan for the project, formerly known as the Sawgrass development. On December 11, 2014, the Council granted preliminary approvals for 246 homes on 103 acres. These approvals were valid for two years. The subject property was rezoned from Urban Reserve (UR) and RMF-3 (High Density Residential) to PUD. The RSF-3 and RMF-1 zoning districts were used as the baseline for the PUD. On February 23, 2017, January 25, 2018, and February 28, 2019, one-year extensions were approved for the project. On February 27, 2020, the Council approved an extension of the preliminary approvals until August 27, 2020. On November 23, 2020, the Council approved phase 1 of Rush Creek Reserve for 80 residential lots and eight outlots on 103 acres. A PUD amendment was also processed with the final PUD for phase 1. As part of the PUD, the new developer MI Homes generally applied with the original PUD approvals. The original Sawgrass PUD approvals included flexibility from some standards in exchange for a development with amenities or improvements that would not otherwise have been possible. Specifically: The original developer received PUD flexibility for: Rush Creek Reserve PUD Amendment (22-025) 2 May 26, 2022 • Reduced lot sizes (area and width) • Reduced setbacks • Signage (sign area and number) • Flexibility from the architectural design standards, regarding garages • Alternative wetland buffers • Trails located within the buffer • Shoreland Overlay District flexibility related to lot coverage, lot width, setbacks and building height. In return for this flexibility, the developer provided: • HOA-maintained permanent open space (38% of the site) • HOA-maintained landscaping in the cul de sac islands and entry monument • A restored urban forest with more than 1,620 new trees • Decorative street lighting • Sidewalks on all public streets • Dedication of a trail easement/fire lane on the east side of the property without park dedication credit • Paving of the entry trail at no cost to the City • Preservation/restoration/enhancement of wetlands • Financing of trunk infrastructure improvements, including a lift station in the project and improvements to County Road 10 • Life-cycle housing opportunities with single family detached homes and some association maintained housing planned. When M/I Homes took over the project, they requested and were granted the following changes to the approved PUD: • The new plan only includes a portion of 103-acre site in the PUD. The entire site will be included in the final plat, but a 7.5-acre parcel on the west side of the site will be retained by the landowner and a parcel on the east side of the site will be acquired by St. Thomas Church. These two parcels retained the RSF-2 zoning. • The new plan eliminated the 75-foot wide single family lots and replaces them with 55- and 65- foot wide lots. o In exchange for this change, the applicant increased the side yard setback from the approved 5-foot setback to 7.5 feet. o The applicant increased the number of lots from 246 to 255 homes. This increases the net density from 3.5 units per acre (upa) to 3.8 upa. o This is consistent with the 3-5 upa range required by the Comprehensive Plan. • Changed foundation types, which impacted the grading plan. The plan includes a mix of slab, full, lookout, walk out foundations. • The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum garage size and M/I requested PUD flexibility from these standards. • The original approvals received PUD flexibility from the maximum garage area on the front elevation. The applicant requested an additional increase in flexibility as part of this project. Rush Creek Reserve PUD Amendment (22-025) 3 May 26, 2022 • The applicant also requested flexibility from the ordinance townhome standard that: 1) a minimum of twenty five percent (25%) of the combined area of all building facades of a structure shall have an exterior finish of brick, stucco and/or natural or artificial stone, 2) no single building facade shall have more than seventy five percent (75%) of one type of exterior finish and 3) no townhome dwelling structure shall have more than sixty percent (60%) of all building facades of one type of exterior finish. • Townhomes were a highly desired component of the original development proposal for the Council at the time. The new plan approved increased the number of townhomes from 20 to 56 homes. However, the applicant did not request a change to the 10-foot side yard (20 feet between buildings) for twin homes or townhomes. When the final PUD was approved in 2020, M/I did not have twin home product and not building footprints were provided with the plans. The site plan did not dimension setbacks between townhome or twin home buildings but the condition for 10-foot side yard setbacks adopted as part of the 2014 PUD was retained. 3. Analysis Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving PUD amendments. A PUD must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards The PUD approvals require a 20-foot separation between the twin home buildings and between the townhome buildings. This was the adopted standard as part of the 2014 preliminary approval and the final approval in 2020 did not request a change to the setback. At the time of the approvals, the plans did not dimension the setback between buildings but was included as a condition of approval. Twin homes At the time of final PUD plan approval, the applicant did not have a twin home designed and setbacks were not dimensioned on the plans, but the PUD approvals clearly required the 10-foot side yard setback (20 feet between building). Unfortunately, the applicant ultimately designed a twin home building that could not comply with the setback requirement and the City erroneously issued building permits for three buildings in phase 1. It appears that the building department accidently reviewed the building permit by referencing the RSF-3 zoning district standards, which requires 15 feet between buildings, rather than the PUD standards, which requires 20 feet between buildings. Rush Creek Reserve PUD Amendment (22-025) 4 May 26, 2022 If the applicant had requested a 15-foot separation between twin homes in 2020, it would likely have been approved because it is consistent with the underlying zoning. The 20-foot separation approved in 2014 appears to be based on that developer’s preference for the development. Staff has no objection to the 15-foot separation between twin homes as that is consistent with the RSF- 3 zoning standard. The applicant did not propose a specific PUD benefit to off-set this change, but their narrative states “…the City Council may be looking for enhanced landscaping in exchange for approval of this request. M/I Homes would be amenable to this.” The PUD provided additional landscaping beyond the minimum ordinance standards for the minimum number of trees, which requires one tree per residential unit. The applicant is proposing to plant 2.5- inch trees. If the Council wishes to require larger trees in exchange for the change to reduce the setback to the underlaying RSF-3 standards for the twin homes they could consider requiring that the front yard tree for each twin home be at least 3-inches when planted. This is included in the draft resolution. Figure 1 - Permits Issued for Yellow Buildings in Phase 1 Townhomes The townhomes require a 20-foot separation in both the RMF-1 zoning district and the PUD standards. Unfortunately, building permits were issued for two buildings with only 18.8 feet of separate for Rush Creek Reserve PUD Amendment (22-025) 5 May 26, 2022 townhomes in Phase 1. It is unclear how this error occurred, but staff does not support any flexibility from the separation for future phases and staff has revised the phase 2 plans to comply for those buildings. The City will need to address the existing building that do not comply. Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment to allow a 15-foot separation between twin home buildings and approval of the PUD amendment to allow less than 20-foot separation between the townhome buildings that have already been constructed. 4. Recommendation Move to adopt Resolution 2022-67 approving the PUD amendment. Attachments 1. Resolution 2022-67 approving the PUD amendment 2. Applicant’s Narrative dated May 12, 2022 3. Applicant’s plans dated May 12, 2022 4. City Existing Conditions notes on May 4, 2022 Plans 5. City Notes on May 12, 2022 Plans 6. RSF-3 district standards table 7. RMF-1 district standards table 8. Twin home Plans 9. Landscape Plans dated May 16, 2022 City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-67 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR “RUSH CREEK RESERVE” FOR M/I HOMES OF MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL LLC (CITY FILE NO. 22-025) WHEREAS, M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval of a planned unit development (PUD) amendment for “Rush Creek Reserve”, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a final PUD plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD amendment is approved to modify Resolution 2020-42 approving the final PUD for “Rush Creek Reserve” and Resolution 2022-42 approving the final PUD for “Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition”. 2. PUD flexibility is granted to establish the following lot standards for this development: Single Family Detached Detached Villas Twin home Townhome Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. 2,200 sq. ft./per unit Minimum lot width 55 feet 55 feet 75 feet (37.5 per unit) 26 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks Front, From all other streets 20 feet 20 feet 22 feet 20 feet Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 15 feet* 15 feet* 15 feet* 15 feet* Deck (side and rear) 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet between buildings (0 between units) Side (living) 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 7.5 feet10 feet 10 feet Side (garage)** 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 7.5 feet10 feet 10 feet Rear 25 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Driveway setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet between buildings 5 feet between buildings *Porches may be allowed to encroach and same on either front setback on corner lots. 3. The City approves after-the-fact approval for less than 20-feet of building separation for the following townhomes in Phase 1: City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-67 Page 2 of 2 a. Allow an 18.8 foot separation between Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, Rush Creek Reserve. b. Allow an18.8 foot separation between Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Rush Creek Reserve. c. All other townhome buildings must comply with the minimum 20-foot separation between buildings. 4. The required front yard tree for each twin home unit shall be a minimum of 3-inches at planting. The landscape plans shall be revised and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any additional twin home permits. 5. All building permit applications shall dimension the required setback and there required 3-inch tree on the plans. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director RUSH CREEK RESERVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST Rush Creek Reserve Planned Unit Development Request Page 1 Rush Creek Reserve Planned Unit Development Request INTRODUCTION M/I Homes is requesting a PUD Amendment to correct an inconsistency between the approved PUD plans and the resolution approving the Rush Creek PUD. This change would not result in any changes to the site plan or plat, but would clarify the inconsistency between the approving resolution and the PUD plans. The preliminary plat, rezoning and preliminary planned unit development (PUD) plan of Rush Creek Reserve (formerly known as Sawgrass) was approved in December 2014, and the 1st Addition final plat and PUD, along with amendments to the originally approved PUD, was approved in November of 2020. The 2nd Addition final plat and PUD was approved by the City Council in April 2022. With the PUD amendment approved in 2020, a number of changes from the preliminary PUD were requested and approved, including reduced minimum lot size and width for townhome lots and reduced lot width for villa lots. As part of these changes to the original PUD, M/I Homes agreed to, increase side yard setbacks for single-family and villa lots from 5 feet to 7.5 feet. We also proposed a 7.5-foot side yard setback for the twin homes and townhomes, but failed to describe this change in our written narrative. As a result, the resolution was approved with the original Sawgrass PUD setbacks, as opposed to those shown in the amended Rush Creek PUD. REQUEST The original PUD approval for Sawgrass included a ten-foot side yard setback for twin and townhomes. Within the narrative submitted for the final plat, PUD, and PUD amendment request, there was no mention of changes to side yard setbacks for the twin or townhome lots, which was a clerical error on the part of M/I Homes. The approved plans, however, did show side yard setback on the twinhome lots of five feet as shown below and on the attached page from the approved preliminary plans. During preparation of the final plans, the side yard setback was increased to 7.5 feet. Rush Creek Reserve Planned Unit Development Request Page 2 TWINHOME SIDE YARD SETBACK AMENDMENT REQUEST A number of building permits have already been approved by the City for 1st Addition twinhomes including 79133 and 7917 Xyloid Lane (Lots 5 and 6, Block 3) with side yard setbacks of 7.5 and 7.8 feet; 7905 and 7909 Xyloid Lane (Lots 3 and 4, Block 3) with side yard setbacks of 7.7 and 7.8 feet; and 7897 and 7901 Xyloid Lane (Lots 1 and 2, Block 3) with side yard setbacks of 7.7 and 8.3 feet. The location of these homes is outlined in an attached site plan, and construction on these homes has already commenced. This amendment will resolve the inconsistency between the PUD Resolution and the approved plans. The PUD required a 20- foot spacing between buildings, and the approved plans showed 15 feet (7.5-foot side yard setback) as a minimum between buildings. To resolve this conflict, we are requesting an amendment of the required side yard setback on twinhomes from 10 feet to 7.5 feet. TOWNHOME SIDE YARD SETBACK AMENDMENT REQUEST There have also been a number of townhome building permits approved within the 1st Addition. In the 1st Addition, the required 20-foot spacing was not met between Lots 8 and 9, Block 1 as well as between Lots 6 and 7, Block 2. While there were also a number of lots in the 2nd Addition that also did not meet the 20-foot spacing requirement, we have worked with City staff to adjust the spacing to meet this requirement. We are requesting an amendment of the required side yard setback on townhomes within the 1st Addition only to allow the spacing between townhomes to be as little as 18.81 feet as shown on the attached site plan. Because a number of building permits have already been approved and construction has commenced on some of these homes, it is not possible to adjust this spacing. As mentioned, we have adjusted the townhome setbacks within the 2nd Addition to meet the required 20-foot spacing. As such, we are not requesting an amendment of the required side yard setback of townhomes within the 2nd Addition. Rush Creek Reserve Planned Unit Development Request Page 3 COMPARISON TO UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT The City’s underlying zoning district, RMF-3, requires a side yard setback of 7.5 feet for twinhomes and ten feet for townhomes, and so we are meeting the underlying zoning district standards. We did increase the proposed side yard setbacks of both the single-family and villa product from 5 to 7.5 feet from the originally approved PUD and propose to keep this side yard setback consistent with twinhomes and townhomes that have already received building permits and are under construction. As mentioned, the proposed PUD amendment will make the PUD Resolution consistent with the approved plans. ENHANCED LANDSCAPING During the Council meeting at which the 2nd Addition Final PUD and plat were approved, the imminent request for this PUD amendment was briefly discussed, and it was mentioned that the City Council may be looking for enhanced landscaping in exchange for approval of this request. M/I Homes would be amenable to this. PUD STANDARDS The following outlines the approved and requested amendments for the entire development: Proposed PUD Standards Single Family Detached Detached Villa Twinhome Townhome Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft. (for flexibility – the smallest lot shown is 7,400) 4,000 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. 2,200 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 55 feet 55 feet 75 feet (37.5 feet/unit) 26 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks Front, from all other streets 20 feet 20 feet 22 feet 20 feet Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 15 feet* 15 feet* 15 feet* 15 feet* Deck (side and rear) 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet between buildings (0 between units) Side (living) 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 10 7.5 feet 10 feet for 2nd Addition, 10 18.81 feet minimum spacing between units for 2nd Addition Side (garage)** 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 10 7.5 feet 10 feet for 2nd Addition, 10 minimum18.81feet spacing between units for 2nd Addition Rear 25 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Driveway Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet between buildings 5 feet between buildings OUTLOT BOUTLOT E OUTLOT H 1 2 3 4 7 8 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20191817 3 2 1 6 5 4 9 8 7 4123 655 1 210 21 165432OUTLOT C 102987654 1131OUTLOT A 5671234 6 7 81 92 103 114 125436781987654321234567891011121231123456789101112131415161718193123456789101112131415164123456789101112135123456789101112131415166123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 177 8 12 OUTLOT D 2123456789101112131415161718F1 F2 F3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415161718192021222324252627 28 12345F4OUTLOT AOUTLOT BOUTLOT C OUTLOT E OUTLOT F OUTLOT G WETLAND10WETLAND9WETLAND6WETLAND8 WETLAND3WETLAND4WETLAND11 M H H G-C G-C G-C G-C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>13003938.7513002 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>XYLOID AVEWALNUT LN WALNUT LNWALNUT LN XYLOID AVE X Y L O I D A V E79TH AVE79TH PLACE 79 T H A V E 79TH AVE7 8 T H P L A C E 80TH AVECOUNTY ROAD 10 C O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 0 150 300 N SIDEWALK 8' W. TRAIL SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 03/15/2022 - 2:13pmDrawing name: C:\pw_stn_bh_infra01\dms95614\193805500PUDC100.dwgXrefs:, 193804970XSXW, 193804970XSXT, 193804970XSNO-PH 2, 193804970XSPV - PH 1, 193804970XSPV - PH 2, 193805500PUDXBRD, 193804970XSXV, 193804970XSNO-PH 1THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.M/I HOMESRUSH CREEK RESERVE, CORCORAN, MN1938055002335 Highway 36 WSt. Paul, MN 55113www.stantec.comFINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 2DAVID AHRENS2/11/2022217112/11/22PUD Submittal OVERALL SITE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLANC1.00 EX. PHASE 1 FUTUREPHASES 10' W. TRAIL FROM CR10 TO END OF 80TH AVE 10' W. TRAIL FROM CR10TO END OF 80TH AVE12' W. TRAIL ANDEMERGENCY VEHICLEACCESSFUTUREPHASES LEGEND EXISTING SIDEWALK PROPOSED SIDEWALK EXISTING TRAIL PROPOSED TRAIL PHASE 2 PHASE 2 Section 1040 (District Regulations) Page 97 February 24, 2022 Subd. 7. Area Requirements: The following minimum requirements shall be met in the RSF-3 district. Properties may be subject to special requirements for overlay districts as noted in Section 1050 (Overlay Districts): Single Family Two-Family dwellings and other uses Minimum Lot Area 7,500 square feet 15,000 square feet Minimum lot width 65 feet 100 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 feet 100 feet Front, From all other streets 20 feet 25 feet Front Porch (≤ 120 square feet) 15 feet N/A Side (living) 10 feet 10 feet Side (garage)** 5 feet 5 feet Rear 30 feet 25 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet 35 feet *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. **Minimum separation between structures on adjacent parcels shall be 15 feet. Subd. 8. Design Requirements. All developments in RSF-3 shall follow the same Design Requirements as listed in 1040.040, Subd 8. (Ord 348, passed 05-25-17, Ord. 445, passed 12-22-21) Section 1040 (District Regulations) Page 105 February 24, 2022 Subd. 7. Area Requirements. The following minimum requirements shall be met in the RMF-1 district. Properties may be subject to special requirements for overlay districts as noted in Section 1050 (Overlay Districts): Single Family Detached/Two Family Townhome Apartment/ Condominium Minimum Lot area 7,000 square feet/7,500 square feet 5,400 square feet per unit 1 acre Minimum lot width 70 feet/150 feet n/a 100 feet Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet Front, From all other streets 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Side (living)** 10 feet 10 feet 30 feet Rear 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet or three stories *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. ** Internal: 20 feet between attached or multi-family principal structures separated by common area. Subd. 8. Single and Two Family Design Requirements. All single and two family developments in RMF-1 shall follow the same Design Requirements as listed in 1040.040, Subd 8. Subd. 9. Special Minimum Requirements for Attached Dwelling Units. A. Unit Size: The following unit size shall apply: 1. Floor Area: Five hundred (500) square foot minimum floor area for efficiency apartment units. Minimum eight hundred (800) square feet for a one-bedroom unit plus one hundred (100) square feet for each additional bedroom. Seven hundred (700) square foot minimum floor area for one-bedroom apartment dwelling units in retirement housing developments, plus one hundred (100) square feet for each additional bedroom. Garages, breezeways and porch floor spaces shall not be credited in determining the required floor area of units. B. Unit Construction: 1. Subdivision Requests: Building elevations and floor plans shall be furnished with subdivision requests illustrating exterior building Sheet Title:Plan Name:mBuyer understands cabinet elevationrenderings are for illustration purpose only.Buyer acknowledges that actual selectionsand details regarding styles and colors ofcabinets, hardware, crown molding,appliances, countertops, sinks, faucets,flooring, backsplashes, lighting, and mirrorswill be governed by buyers Selection Sheets Sheet Title:Plan Name:mBuyer understands cabinet elevationrenderings are for illustration purpose only.Buyer acknowledges that actual selectionsand details regarding styles and colors ofcabinets, hardware, crown molding,appliances, countertops, sinks, faucets,flooring, backsplashes, lighting, and mirrorswill be governed by buyers Selection Sheets RUSH UNIT RRT0296 BRIGGS UNIT RRT0297 Revisions History Date General Revisions Rush Revisions Briggs Revisions G1Cover SheetCKO 11/22/2021-- --Lakeside TwinsRUSH CREEK RESERVEXYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340SPEC HOMESRRT0296-297 The Lakeside Collection Twinhomes Corcoran, MN Project Information PROJECT NAME: The Lakeside Collection Twinhomes LOCATION:Corcoran, Minnesota PROJECT TYPE: Slab Twinhomes THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING BUILDING CODES: -2020 MINNESOTA RESIDENTIAL CODE (2020 IRC) -2020 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE (2020 IECC) -2020 MINNESOTA ACCESSIBILITY CODE (2020 IRC) -2015 MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE (2012 UPC) -2014 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE -ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL CODES. Sheet Index General G1 COVER SHEET G2 SPECIFICATIONS G3 FOUNDATION SECTIONS BUILDING ELEVATION A AA1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AA2 FOUNDATION ASSEMBLY PLAN AA3 MAIN LEVEL ASSEMBLY PLAN AA4 MAIN LEVEL ASSEMBLY PLAN w/ UPPER LEVEL AA5 UPPER LEVEL AND ROOF ASSEMBLY PLANS BUILDING ELEVATION B BB1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BB2 FOUNDATION ASSEMBLY PLAN BB3 MAIN LEVEL ASSEMBLY PLAN BB4 MAIN LEVEL ASSEMBLY PLAN w/ UPPER LEVEL BB5 UPPER LEVEL AND ROOF ASSEMBLY PLANS BUILDING ELEVATION C CC1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CC2 FOUNDATION ASSEMBLY PLAN CC3 MAIN LEVEL ASSEMBLY PLAN CC4 MAIN LEVEL ASSEMBLY PLAN w/ UPPER LEVEL CC5 UPPER LEVEL AND ROOF ASSEMBLY PLANS UNIT A - RUSH AS1 FRONT ELEVATION AS2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AS3 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AS4 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN W/ OPT. UPPER LEVEL AS5 BUILDING SECTIONS ASE1 MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN ASE2 MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN W/ OPT. UPPER LEVEL P1 PLAN OPTIONS UNIT B - BRIGGS AS1 FRONT ELEVATION AS2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AS3 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AS4 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN W/ OPT. UPPER LEVEL AS5 BUILDING SECTIONS ASE1 MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN ASE2 MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN W/ OPT. UPPER LEVEL P1 PLAN OPTIONS DETAILS AD1 DETAILS AD2 DETAILS AD3 DETAILS AD4 DETAILS AD5 DETAILS Project Team BUILDER / OWNER: M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul, LLC 5354 Parkdale Dr. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.mihomes.com Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:Elevation C 3/16"=1'-0" 1 G2General NotesCKO 11/22/2021-- --Lakeside TwinsRUSH CREEK RESERVEXYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340SPEC HOMESRRT0296-297 Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:GENERAL NOTES RUSH UNIT RRT0296 BRIGGS UNIT RRT0297 A RUSH UNIT RRT0296 BRIGGS UNIT RRT0297 A CC1CKO 11/22/2021-- --Lakeside TwinsRUSH CREEK RESERVEXYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340SPEC HOMESRRT0296-297 Front Elevation1 Left Elevation 3/16"=1'-0" 3 Rear Elevation2 Right Elevation 3/16"=1'-0" 4 Exterior ElevationsDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:3/16"=1'-0" 3/16"=1'-0" RUSH UNIT RRT0296 BRIGGS UNIT RRT0297 CC2CKO 11/22/2021-- --Lakeside TwinsRUSH CREEK RESERVEXYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340SPEC HOMESRRT0296-297 Foundation Assembly Plan - Right Side Partial 3/16"=1'-0" 1 Foundation Assembly PlansDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition: RUSH UNIT RRT0296 BRIGGS UNIT RRT0297 CC3CKO 11/22/2021-- --Lakeside TwinsRUSH CREEK RESERVEXYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340SPEC HOMESRRT0296-297 Main Level Assembly PlanDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:Main Level Assembly Plan 3/16"=1'-0" 1 RUSH UNIT RRT0296 BRIGGS UNIT RRT0297 CC4CKO 11/22/2021-- --Lakeside TwinsRUSH CREEK RESERVEXYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340SPEC HOMESRRT0296-297 Roof Assembly Plan 3/16"=1'-0" 2 Upper Level & Roof Assembly PlansDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition: XXXXCS1FRONT ELEVATIONCSA Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0297RUSH CREEK RESERVE7905 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340BRIGGSSPEC HOME3 3 3/8"=1'-0" 1 FRONT ELEVATION C - STONE 1/2"=1'-0" 1 COLUMN DETAIL A A CS2ROOF PLANCBEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0297RUSH CREEK RESERVE7905 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340BRIGGSSPEC HOME3 3 3/16"=1'-0" 1 SIDE ELEVATION 3/16"=1'-0" 2 REAR ELEVATION 48" X 60" MECHANICALPAD WITH 30" CLEARSPACE AS PER CODE(HIGH EFFICIENCY FURNACE)(RETURN AIR CHASE)(AIR EXCHANGER)(HUMIDIFIER) D W ADD SHEETROCK TO FINISH GARAGE ALL WALLS & CEILINGS*** FIRE TAPED ONLY *** CS3MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANCSDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0297RUSH CREEK RESERVE7905 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340BRIGGSSPEC HOME3 3 1/4"=1'-0" 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN NOTES LEGEND FLOOR AREAS (S.F.) Garage WIC OwnersBath OwnersSuite COVEREDPATIO BEDROOM #2MAIN BATHFAMILYROOMMECHNICAL WIC 1/4"=1'-0" 2 BUILDING SECTION @ PORCH/HOUSE CS4CSBUILDING SECTIONSDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0297RUSH CREEK RESERVE7905 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340BRIGGSSPEC HOME3 3 1/4"=1'-0" 1 BUILDING CROSS SECTION @ GARAGE/HOUSE 48" X 60" MECHANICALPAD WITH 30" CLEARSPACE AS PER CODE(HIGH EFFICIENCY FURNACE)(RETURN AIR CHASE)(AIR EXCHANGER)(HUMIDIFIER)TTCSE1CSELOWER LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLANDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0297RUSH CREEK RESERVE7905 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340BRIGGSSPEC HOME3 3 1 1/4"=1'-0" MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN 00ALLDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0297RUSH CREEK RESERVE7905 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340BRIGGSSPEC HOME3 3 NO SCALE 1 WINDOW ROUGH OPENING SCHEDULE WINDOW ROUGH OPENING SCHEDULE XXXXCS1FRONT ELEVATIONCSA Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0296RUSH CREEK RESERVE7909 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340RUSHSPEC HOME4 3 3/8"=1'-0" 1 FRONT ELEVATION C - STONE 1/2"=1'-0" 1 COLUMN DETAIL A A CS2ROOF PLANCBEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0296RUSH CREEK RESERVE7909 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340RUSHSPEC HOME4 3 3/16"=1'-0" 1 SIDE ELEVATION 3/16"=1'-0" 2 REAR ELEVATION 3/16"=1'-0" 4 REAR ELEVATION - DINING ROOM SIDE 3/16"=1'-0" 3 REAR ELEVATION - OWNERS SUITE SIDE 48" X 60" MECHANICALPAD WITH 30" CLEARSPACE AS PER CODE(HIGH EFFICIENCY FURNACE)(RETURN AIR CHASE)AIR EXCHANGERHUMIDIFIER DW ADD SHEETROCK TO FINISH GARAGE ALL WALLS & CEILINGS*** FIRE TAPED ONLY *** CS3MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLANCSDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0296RUSH CREEK RESERVE7909 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340RUSHSPEC HOME4 3 1/4"=1'-0" 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN NOTES LEGEND FLOOR AREAS (S.F.) GarageWICOwnersBathOwnersSuite DININGROOM BEDROOM #2MAIN BATHKITCHEN MECHNICAL1/4"=1'-0" 2 BUILDING SECTION @ HOUSE CS4CSBUILDING SECTIONSDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0296RUSH CREEK RESERVE7909 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340RUSHSPEC HOME4 3 1/4"=1'-0" 1 BUILDING CROSS SECTION @ GARAGE/HOUSE 48" X 60" MECHANICALPAD WITH 30" CLEARSPACE AS PER CODE(HIGH EFFICIENCY FURNACE)(RETURN AIR CHASE)AIR EXCHANGERHUMIDIFIERTT CSE1CSEMAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLANDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0296RUSH CREEK RESERVE7909 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340RUSHSPEC HOME4 3 1 1/4"=1'-0" MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN 00ALLDrawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:KO 11/30/2021 RRT0296RUSH CREEK RESERVE7909 XYLOID LANECORCORAN, MN 55340RUSHSPEC HOME4 3 NO SCALE 1 WINDOW ROUGH OPENING SCHEDULE WINDOW ROUGH OPENING SCHEDULE Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:FPEELECTRIC FIREPLACEBP 6/28/2019 ------- 1/4"=1'-0" 1 ELECTRIC FIREPLACE OPT. 5 STANDARD FIREPLACE DETAILS Project Number:Date:S11Sheets: ofDescriptionDateIssuedPrint Name:Signed: License Number:Trevor Axner45470Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineerunder the laws of the State of Minnesota.3407 Kilmer Lane NorthSuite 4Plymouth, MN 55441Tel 612-708-3572www.hansongroupmn.comM/I Homes5354 Parkdale Drive, #100St. Louis Park, MN 5541641.507The Lakeside CollectionTwinhomesMinnesota ConstructionSeptember 17, 20219-17-21COPYRIGHT HANSON GROUP, LLC 2021©INDICATES EXTERIOR BRACED WALL PANEL w/ SHEATHING ON EXTERIOR FACE IN ACCORDANCE w/ FRAMING NOTE 9.PROVIDE INCREASED FASTENING REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN BELOW.INDICATES ENGINEERED WIND RESISTING ELEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAIL SHEETS.(MIN. LENGTH)(MIN. LENGTH)INDICATES INTERIOR BRACED WALL PANEL w/ GYPSUM SHEATHING BOTH FACES WITH EITHER FASTENER OPTION LISTED INFRAMING NOTE 10, SPACED AT 4" O.C. PROVIDE INCREASED FASTENING REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN BELOW.PROJECT SCOPEDESIGN OF THE MAIN WINDFORCE RESISTING SYSTEM, AND THE BEAMS, HEADERS, AND SUPPORTING MEMBERS FOR APROPOSED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESEDRAWINGS, STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.GENERAL NOTES1. THESE DOCUMENTS APPLY TO STRUCTURAL ONLY. REFER TO HOUSE PLANS PREPARED BY M/I HOMES FOR MOREINFORMATION.2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER TO PROVIDE ALL FUTURE PLAN OR FIELD CHANGES TO THE HANSON GROUPFOR REVIEW. PROVIDE FINAL TRUSS LAYOUTS TO THE HANSON GROUP PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALACQUISITION.3. ADEQUATE SHORING DURING CONSTRUCTION IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.4. CONTRACTOR AND BUILDER ARE TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK.NOTIFY THE HANSON GROUP IF DISCREPANCIES ARISE.5. DESIGN OF THE MANUFACTURER ENGINEERED PRODUCTS ARE BY THE SUPPLIER INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WOODFLOOR AND ROOF TRUSSES, STAIR AND LANDING SYSTEMS, RAILINGS, AND ALL NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS6. MEANS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.FOUNDATION NOTES1. DRAIN TILE, DAMPPROOFING AND/OR WATERPROOFING, & INSULATION, AS WELL AS THEIR INSTALLATION, ARE TO BE INACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE.2. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF (2) ANCHORS PER PORTION OF SILL PLATE AS WELL AS AN ANCHOR WITHIN 12" OF EACH END ASAPPLICABLE.3. BAR SPLICES ARE TO BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 48 BAR DIAMETERS. PROVIDE 48" MATCHING HOOK BARS FOR ALLHORIZONTAL BARS AT WALL CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS.4. CARE IS TO BE TAKEN DURING BACKFILLING TO MAINTAIN A PLUMB WALL ALIGNMENT.5. BACKFILL BELOW EXTERIOR STOOP SLABS WITH COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL TO FROST DEPTH (4'-0" MINIMUM).6. SITE ELEMENTS INCLUDING LANDSCAPING RETAINING WALLS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF THESE DRAWINGS.FRAMING NOTES1. ALL HEADERS ARE TO BE MINIMUM (2) 2x10 LUMBER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. (2) 2x10 MEMBERS SHOWN MAY BESUBSTITUTED WITH (2) 1¾" x 7¼" LSL AS REQUIRED.2. ALL DIMENSION LUMBER HEADERS AND BEAMS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE BEARING STUD AT EACH END AND TWOAT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. ALL 2-PLY LSL/LVL AND GIRDER TRUSS BEAMS AND HEADERS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OFTWO BEARING STUDS AT EACH END AND AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. 3-PLY LSL/LVL AND GIRDER TRUSS MEMBERS ARETO HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE BEARING STUDS AT EACH END AND AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS. ADDITIONAL BEARINGSTUDS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR LVL/LSL SUBSTITUTED FOR STANDARD SAWN LUMBER. ALL BEARING ABOVE IS UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS. TRUSS SUPPLIER IS TO VERIFY GIRDER TRUSS BEARING LENGTH AND SUPPORTREQUIREMENTS. BEARING ENHANCERS ARE BY THE SUPPLIER.3. ALL HEADERS AND BEAMS ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF ONE FULL HEIGHT KING STUD AT EACH END. EXTERIOROPENINGS GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN WIDTH ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO FULL HEIGHT KING STUDS AT EACH END,EXCEPT AT TALL WALLS AS NOTED. EXTERIOR OPENINGS GREATER THAN TEN FEET IN WIDTH ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUMOF THREE FULL HEIGHT KING STUDS AT EACH END, EXCEPT AT TALL WALLS AS NOTED. FOR CONTINUOUS BEAMCONDITIONS, SPAN IN DETERMINING NUMBER OF KING STUDS IS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE HEADER.4. ALL CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE MADE WITH ADEQUATE SIMPSON, USP OR EQUAL JOIST HANGERS, CLIPS, POST CAPS, ANDPOST BASES.5. CONNECT MULTIPLE MEMBER LSL/LVL'S TOGETHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS.6. VERIFY DROPPED VERSUS FLUSH BEAM CONDITIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS.7. ALL OTHER FASTENERS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE CODE TABLE R602.3(1).8. ALL STUD PLIES IN BUILT UP COLUMNS AND AT INTERMEDIATE STUD FRAMING TO BE FASTENED TO SHEATHING / GYPBOARD AS NOTED BELOW (12" O.C. MAX. AT EXTERIOR AND 16" O.C. MAX. AT INTERIOR).9. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, U.N.O., WHICH MEETSOR EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CODE SECTION R602.10.4-WSP AND CS-WSP.A. 2x6 STUDS SPACED @ 16" O.C. (GARAGE WALLS MAY BE 2x4 STUDS)B. EXTERIOR SHEATHING: 716" MIN. STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEATHING w/ 8d COMMON NAILS @ 6" O.C AT PANEL EDGESAND 12" O.C. AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS OR 134" 16 GAUGE STAPLES @ 3" / 6" SPACING.10. ALL INTERIOR WALLS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, U.N.O.A. 2x4 OR 2x6 STUDS SPACED @ 16" O.C.B. WALL SHEATHING: 12" MIN. GYPSUM SHEATHING FASTENED TO FRAMING w/ 5d COOLER NAILS @ 8" O.C. MAX. OR TYPES/W WALLBOARD SCREWS @ 16" O.C. MAX. (58" MINIMUM STUD PENETRATION)11. ALL FLOORS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.A. FLOOR FRAMING SPACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 24" O.C.B. FLOOR SHEATHING: 34" STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEATHING w/ 8d COMMON NAILS @ 6" O.C AT PANEL EDGES AND 12"O.C. AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS.12. ALL ROOFS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.A. ROOF FRAMING SPACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 24" O.C.B. FASTEN ALL ROOF FRAMING TO TOP PLATES WITH SIMPSON H2.5 CLIPS OR EQUIVALENT AND (4) 0.131"Ø x 3"TOENAILS.C. ROOF SHEATHING: 12" STRUCTURAL PANEL SHEATHING w/ 8d COMMON NAILS @ 6" O.C AT PANEL EDGES AND 12" O.C.AT INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS OR 134" 16 GAUGE STAPLES @ 3" / 6" SPACING.13. ALL BEARING POINT OR POST LOADS ARE TO BE BLOCKED SOLID TO THE FOUNDATION.14. CUT PSL POSTS TO FIT. DO NOT BLOCK WITH WOOD PLATE MATERIAL, CRUSHING WOULD OCCUR. AT BOTTOM, PSL TOBEAR DIRECTLY ON CONCRETE. IF UNTREATED, WRAP BOTTOM w/ MEMBRANE.15. STEEL COLUMN TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES (R = 20 KIPS) ARE BY THE MANUFACTURER.16. ALONG LENGTH OF WALLS, LAP WALL TOP PLATES A MINIMUM OF 24" AND FASTEN TOGETHER WITH (12) 0.131"Ø x 3" NAILSIN LAP ZONE. AT CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS, LAP PLATES AND PROVIDE (3) 0.131"Ø x 3" FACE NAILS.17. ENGINEERING SHOWN ASSUMES NO SILL PLATE OVERHANG AT THE TOP OF THE FOUNDATION WALLS.18. TALL WALLS ARE DESIGNED FOR H/180 DEFLECTION CRITERIA.MATERIALSCONCRETE FOOTINGS: F'c = 5,000 PSI @ 28 DAYS (OR 3,500 PSI WITH AN APPROVED ADMIXTURE THAT PROVIDES A WATER AND VAPOR RESISTANCE AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO 5,000 PSI CONCRETE)CONCRETE WALLS: F'c = 3,500 PSI @ 28 DAYSREINFORCING STEEL: ASTM A615 GRADE 60 (#4 BARS MAY BE GRADE 40)AGGREGATE: FOOTINGS - 112" MAX WALLS/SLABS- 34" MAXWALL STUDS (10' OR LESS): SPF STUD GRADE OR BETTERWALL STUDS (OVER 10'): SPF NO.2 GRADE OR BETTERDIMENSIONAL LUMBER: SPF NO.2 GRADE OR BETTERTREATED LUMBER:SYP NO.2 GRADE OR BETTERLVL:134" WIDTH - Fb = 2600 PSI, E = 1,900,000 PSIPSL:Fb = 2400 PSI, Fc = 2500 PSI, E = 1,800,000 PSILSL STUDS:Fb = 1700 PSI, E = 1,300,000 PSILSL BEAMS:134" WIDTH - Fb = 2325 PSI, E = 1,550,000 PSISTRUCTURAL STEEL: ANGLES/MISC - ASTM A36 (Fy = 36KSI)PIPES - ASTM A53 Gr. B (Fy = 35 KSI)ALLOWABLE SOILBEARING PRESSURE: 2,000 PSF (ASSUMED)LOADSROOF LIVE LOAD: 35 PSF (SNOW)ROOF DEAD LOAD:15 PSFFLOOR LIVE LOAD:40 PSFFLOOR DEAD LOAD:15 PSFWIND LOAD:115 MPH ULTIMATE EXP. CCODES2020 MINNESOTA RESIDENTIAL CODEABBREVIATIONSTYP. = TYPICALSIM. = SIMILARU.N.O. = UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEO.C. = ON CENTER= CONTINUOUS OVERINTERIOR BRACED WALLPERPENDICULAR TO FRAMINGINTERIOR BRACED WALLPARALLEL WITH FRAMINGBRACED WALL CONNECTIONBRACED WALL CONNECTION(ROOF TRUSSES)(FLOOR TRUSSES)DETAILS SHOWN HERE AREALTERNATIVE CONNECTIONS TO BEUSED WHEN BRACED WALL PANELDOES NOT ALIGN WITH FRAMING.2S1FRAMING DETAILSBRACED WALL FASTENINGSEE PLANS FOR LOCATIONSEXTERIOR BRACED WALLPERPENDICULAR TO FRAMINGEXTERIOR BRACED WALLPARALLEL WITH FRAMINGTHESE SHEETS REPRESENT A COMPLETE DESIGN OF THE"MAIN WINDFORCE RESISTING SYSTEM" FOR THE ENTIRERESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE LOCATION AND LENGTHOF EACH BRACED WALL PANEL AND ENGINEERED WINDRESISTING ELEMENT THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THEHANSON GROUP'S DESIGN IS SHOWN ON THESTRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WALLS NOT SPECIFICALLYLABELED ON THE PLANS MAY BE STANDARD FRAMING.FRAME 2x4 BOXAROUND SPACEBETWEEN TRUSS w/SAME SHEATHINGAND FASTENING ASWALL BELOW(OR REPLACE w/ADEQUATE DEPTH2x MEMBER)#12 x 312" WOODSCREWS @ 16" O.C.INSTALLED INADDITION TO NAILS(MAIN/UPPERLEVEL ROOFTRUSS BEARINGWALLS ONLY)REPRESENTSFIGURER602.10.8.2(3)ROOF TRUSSESFASTENED TO PLATESw/ (4) 0.131"Ø x 3"TOENAILS & SIMPSONH2.5 CLIPNAIL BOTTOM PLATETO RIBBON BRACE /TRUSS w/ (3) 16dNAILS EVERY 16"2x4 BLOCKINGBETWEENTRUSSES NAILEDTO TOP PLATESw/ (3) 0.131"Ø x 3"NAILS EACHNAIL EACH TRUSS TOTOP PLATES w/ (3)0.131"Ø x 3" TOENAILSROOF TRUSSFASTENED TOPLATES w/0.131"Ø x 3"TOENAILS@ 6" O.C.NAIL BOTTOMPLATE TO LADDERTRUSS w/ (3) 16dNAILS EVERY 16"NAIL LADDERTRUSS TO TOPPLATES w/0.131"Ø x 3"NAILS @ 6" O.C.ROOFTRUSSESBRACEDWALL PANELFLAT 2x6 @ 24" O.C.(MIN. (3) PER BRACEDWALL PANEL)SIMPSONA35FRAMINGANGLEEACH END(4) 0.131"Øx 3" NAILSBRACEDWALL PANEL(4) 0.131"Øx 3" NAILSSIMPSONLTP4FRAMINGPLATEEACH ENDFLOORTRUSSESFLAT 2x6 @ 24" O.C.(MIN. (3) PER BRACEDWALL PANEL)BRACEDWALL PANEL(4) 0.131"Øx 3" NAILSSIMPSONLTP4FRAMINGPLATEEACH ENDFLOORTRUSSESFLAT 2x6 @ 24" O.C.(MIN. (3) PER BRACEDWALL PANEL)w/ TRUSSES2x4 BLOCKING BETWEENROOF TRUSSES NAILEDTO TOP PLATES w/ (3)0.131"Ø x 3" NAILS EACHNAIL BOTTOM PLATE TOBLOCKING w/ (3) 16dNAILS EVERY 16"PROVIDE FULL DEPTHBLOCKING BETWEEN TRUSSESNAILED TO TOP PLATES w/(3) 0.131"Ø x 3" NAILS EACHNAIL EACH TRUSS TO TOP PLATEw/ (3) 0.131"Ø x 3" TOENAILSPROVIDE ROOF TRUSSDIRECTLY IN LINE w/BRACED WALL PANELFASTENED TO PLATESw/ 0.131"Ø x 3"TOENAILS @ 6" O.C.NAIL BOTTOM PLATETO BLOCKING w/ (3)16d NAILS EVERY 16"PROVIDE TRUSS DIRECTLYIN LINE w/ BRACED WALLPANEL FASTENED TOPLATES w/ 0.131"Ø x 3"TOENAILS @ 6" O.C.NAIL BOTTOM PLATE w/(3) 16d NAILS EVERY 16"(OR AS SHOWN TOTHE RIGHT IF REQ'D)FASTEN PLATE w/ 14" CONCRETESCREWS OR POWDERACTUATED 0.145" WASHEREDPINS @ 16" O.C. w/ 1"EMBEDMENT IN CONCRETEEXAMPLE FOUNDATION PLAN SHOWNFOR LOCATION REFERENCE ONLY- BOTH UNITS SHOWN IN ELEVATION A(ACTUAL OVERALL LAYOUT MAY BE MIRROREDBUT GARAGES MUST REMAIN ADJACENT w/ONE RUSH AND ONE BRIGGS PLAN SELECTED)1S1OVERALLREFERENCE PLAN16" WIDE x 8" DEEP CONCRETESTRIP FOOTING TYP. AT ALLEXTERIOR FOUNDATIONWALLS AND AT ALL INTERIORBEARING / STAIR WALLSUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE24" WIDE x 8" DEEP CONCRETESTRIP FOOTING TYP. AT ALLSHARED PARTY WALLSALL FOUNDATION WALLSBELOW TO BE PER CODE ORENGINEERED GUIDELINESCONCRETE PAD FOOTING SCHEDULEMARK FOOTING SIZE REINFORCEMENT EACH WAYF12'-0" x 2'-0" x 0'-8"NONEF22'-6" x 2'-6" x 0'-8"#5 BARS @ 12" O.C.LOCATE REINFORCEMENT 3" FROM THE BOTTOM OF FOOTINGF2 FOOTING MAY 12" THICK UNREINFORCEDF2ADD INTERIOR STRIPFOOTINGS BELOWALL BEARING WALLS /STAIR WALLS ATBONUS ROOM OPTIONADD INTERIOR STRIPFOOTINGS BELOWALL BEARING WALLS /STAIR WALLS ATBONUS ROOM OPTIONF2OMIT THESE TWO PADFOOTINGS AT BONUSROOM OPTIONF2F2THESE TWO PAD FOOTINGSONLY APPLY TO BONUSROOM OPTION - ALTERNATIVETO PADS IS TO POUR 20"WIDE STRIP FOOTING AT THISREAR WALLF2F2F1THIS PAD FOOTING ONLYAPPLIES TO BONUS ROOMOPTIONPLANS SHOWN LIGHT IN BACKGROUND ARE FORLOCATION REFERENCE ONLY. PLAN NOTES ANDELEMENTS SHOWN LIGHT MAY NOT NECESSARILYSUPPORT THE HANSON GROUP'S DESIGN.F1THESE PAD FOOTINGS ONLYAPPLY TO BONUS ROOMOPTIONF1 Project Number:Date:S22Sheets: ofPrint Name:Signed: License Number:Trevor Axner45470Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineerunder the laws of the State of Minnesota.3407 Kilmer Lane NorthSuite 4Plymouth, MN 55441Tel 612-708-3572www.hansongroupmn.comPLANS SHOWN LIGHT IN BACKGROUND ARE FORLOCATION REFERENCE ONLY. PLAN NOTES ANDELEMENTS SHOWN LIGHT MAY NOT NECESSARILYSUPPORT THE HANSON GROUP'S DESIGN.©COPYRIGHT HANSON GROUP, LLC 2021MAIN LEVEL PLAN WITHOUT UPPERLEVEL BONUS ROOM ABOVE SHOWN FORLOCATION REFERENCE ONLY(ACTUAL LAYOUT MAY BE MIRRORED -MAINTAIN GARAGE ON PARTY WALL SIDE)1S2RUSH UNITREFERENCE PLAN2S2RUSH UNITREFERENCE PLANUPPER LEVEL BONUS ROOM PLANSHOWN FOR LOCATION REFERENCE ONLY(ACTUAL LAYOUT MAY BE MIRRORED3S2RUSH UNITREFERENCE PLANPLAN NOTES:1. ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SEE FRAMINGNOTES 1 TO 3 ON S1 FOR MORE INFO. BEARING FOR HEADERS AND BEAMSONLY NOTED ON PLAN WHEN EXCEEDING FRAMING NOTE REQUIREMENTS.2. VERIFY TRUSS LAYOUT WITH SUPPLIER. PROVIDE (2) 2x4 OR 2x6 BRG STUDSAT EACH END OF ALL GIRDER TRUSSES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.TRUSS SUPPLIER TO VERIFY ADEQUATE BEARING AREA FOR TRUSSMEMBERS.3. REFER TO FRAMING NOTES ON S1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.4. PARTY WALL AND FIRE RATING REQUIREMENTS ARE BY OTHERS.5. UNITS MAY BE MIRRORED - SEE HOUSE PLANS FOR BUILDING SPECIFICCONFIGURATION.6. NON-STRUCTURAL SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER. SUB-BASE PREPARATION, PLACEMENT,CURING, SEALING, CONTROL JOINT LAYOUT, AND RADON CONTROLMETHODS ARE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODEREQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE.7. REFER TO FOUNDATION NOTES ON S1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.8. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH BUILDER PLANS PRIOR TOFOUNDATION PLACEMENT.M/I Homes5354 Parkdale Drive, #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416DescriptionDateIssued41.507The Lakeside CollectionTwinhomesMinnesota ConstructionSeptember 17, 20219-17-216x6 POST w/ STANDARDPOST CAP AND BASE TYP.DASH-DOT LINEINDICATESGIRDER TRUSSBY SUPPLIERTYP.INDICATES ROOFTRUSS SPANBY SUPPLIERTYP.TRUSS SPANS SHOWNSEPARATED ATBEARING WALLS MAYBE ONE TRUSSCONTINUOUS OVERBEARING BY SUPPLIERTYP.LATERALLY BRACE TOPOF GABLE END WALLSPER TRUSS SUPPLIERBRACEDWALL LINEBRACEDWALL LINE(2) 912" LSL(2) 912" LSL(2) 912" LSL(3) 912" LSL(2)2x10(3.5-FT)(2.5-FT)(2.5-FT)(3.25-FT)(4-FT)(4-FT)(4-FT)(3-FT)(3) 912" LSLCONSTRUCT PORTALFRAME AS SHOWN IN 1/S4(2) 16" LVLEXTENDED HEADER(2)2x8(3) 2x6 BRGCONSTRUCTPERFORATEDSHEAR WALLS ASSHOWN IN 2/S4(8-FT)ONE-SIDED (15-FT) ONE-SIDED(8-FT)ONE-SIDED BRACEDWALL LINEBRACEDWALL LINE(8-FT)(5-FT)(5-FT)MAIN LEVEL PLAN WITH UPPER LEVELBONUS ROOM ABOVE SHOWN FORLOCATION REFERENCE ONLY(ACTUAL LAYOUT MAY BE MIRRORED -MAINTAIN GARAGE ON PARTY WALL SIDE)REMAINING ROOF TRUSSESARE ROOM-IN-ATTIC TRUSSESBY SUPPLIER - SEE MAINLEVEL PLAN FOR SPANSROOF TRUSSES SPANNINGOVER STAIR ASSUMED TOSPAN FULL TO REARDINING ROOM WALL -VERIFY MINIMUM DEPTHBY SUPPLIER TYP.REAR BONUS ROOMWALL IS WITHIN ROOFSYSTEM - SEE MAINLEVEL PLAN FORWALL BRACING18'-11"± MAX. STAIR TALL WOOD WALLS TOBE CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:·2x6 LSL @ 12" O.C. TYPICAL FULL HEIGHTWALL FRAMING (BALLOON FRAMED) - IFDETERMINED TO BE EXPOSURE 'B',FRAMING MAY BE 2x6 LSL @ 16" O.C.·SEE PLAN FOR BEARING AND KING STUDS·PROVIDE 2x BLOCKING BETWEEN STUDSAT 10'-0" O.C. MAX. VERTICAL SPACINGOVER HEIGHT OF WALL·INFILL FRAMING LESS THAN 16'-0" MAY BE2x6 SPF AT 16" O.C.·TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES MAY BESYP/SPF(1) 2x6 LSL BRGSTUD AND (2) 2x6LSL KING STUDSFULL HEIGHTLATERALLY BRACE TOPOF GABLE END WALLSPER TRUSS SUPPLIER6x6 POST w/ STANDARDPOST CAP AND BASE TYP.DASH-DOT LINEINDICATESGIRDER TRUSSBY SUPPLIERTYP.ROOM-IN-ATTIC ROOM-IN-ATTIC ROOM-IN-ATTIC BRACEDWALL LINEBRACED WALL LINE (2) 912" LSL(2) 912" LSL(2) 912" LSL(3.5-FT)(2.5-FT)(2.5-FT)(3.25-FT)BRACED WALL LINE(3) 912" LSL(2) 912"LSL(2) 912" LSL CONSTRUCT PORTALFRAME AS SHOWN IN 1/S4(2) 16" LVLEXTENDED HEADER(2) 2x8CONSTRUCTPERFORATEDSHEAR WALLS ASSHOWN IN 2/S4BRACEDWALL LINE(8-FT)(7-FT)(5-FT)TRUSS SPANS SHOWNSEPARATED ATBEARING WALLS MAYBE ONE TRUSSCONTINUOUS OVERBEARING BY SUPPLIERTYP.INDICATES ROOFTRUSS SPANBY SUPPLIERTYP.LATERALLY BRACE TOPOF GABLE END WALLSPER TRUSS SUPPLIER(4-FT)(4-FT)(4-FT)(3-FT) (8-FT) ONE-SIDED (15-FT) ONE-SIDED(12-FT) ONE-SIDED BRACED WALL LINE BRACED WALL LINE(4-FT)BRACEDWALL LINE(4-FT)ONE-SIDED(4-FT)ONE-SIDED(4-FT)ONE-SIDED(2.5-FT)(2.33-FT)THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWNDIRECTLY ABOVE ONLY APPLY TO THEFRONT OF ELEVATIONS B AND C6x6 POST w/ STANDARDPOST CAP AND BASE TYP.DASH-DOT LINEINDICATESGIRDER TRUSSBY SUPPLIERTYP.(3-FT)(2) 2x10 (3) 2x6 BRGCONSTRUCTPERFORATEDSHEAR WALLS ASSHOWN IN 2/S4(3) 2x10(2) 2x10OMIT PORCH BEAM IFGABLE ROOF TRUSSSTRUCTURALLY SPANSBETWEEN POSTS(4-FT) ONE-SIDED(3) 2x6 BRG DIRECTLYBELOW GT WHENOPTIONAL WINDOW ISNOT SELECTED(3) 912" LSL Project Number:Date:S33Sheets: ofPrint Name:Signed: License Number:Trevor Axner45470Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineerunder the laws of the State of Minnesota.3407 Kilmer Lane NorthSuite 4Plymouth, MN 55441Tel 612-708-3572www.hansongroupmn.comPLANS SHOWN LIGHT IN BACKGROUND ARE FORLOCATION REFERENCE ONLY. PLAN NOTES ANDELEMENTS SHOWN LIGHT MAY NOT NECESSARILYSUPPORT THE HANSON GROUP'S DESIGN.©COPYRIGHT HANSON GROUP, LLC 2021M/I Homes5354 Parkdale Drive, #100St. Louis Park, MN 554161S3BRIGGS UNITREFERENCE PLAN2S3BRIGGS UNITREFERENCE PLAN3S3BRIGGS UNITREFERENCE PLANDescriptionDateIssued41.507The Lakeside CollectionTwinhomesMinnesota ConstructionSeptember 17, 20219-17-21MAIN LEVEL PLAN WITHOUT UPPERLEVEL BONUS ROOM ABOVE SHOWN FORLOCATION REFERENCE ONLY(ACTUAL LAYOUT MAY BE MIRRORED -MAINTAIN GARAGE ON PARTY WALL SIDE)UPPER LEVEL BONUS ROOM PLANSHOWN FOR LOCATION REFERENCE ONLY(ACTUAL LAYOUT MAY BE MIRROREDMAIN LEVEL PLAN WITH UPPER LEVELBONUS ROOM ABOVE SHOWN FORLOCATION REFERENCE ONLY(ACTUAL LAYOUT MAY BE MIRRORED -MAINTAIN GARAGE ON PARTY WALL SIDE)6x6 POST w/ STANDARDPOST CAP AND BASE TYP.DASH-DOT LINEINDICATESGIRDER TRUSSBY SUPPLIERTYP.INDICATES ROOFTRUSS SPANBY SUPPLIERTYP.TRUSS SPANS SHOWNSEPARATED ATBEARING WALLS MAYBE ONE TRUSSCONTINUOUS OVERBEARING BY SUPPLIERTYP.LATERALLY BRACE TOPOF GABLE END WALLSPER TRUSS SUPPLIERBRACEDWALL LINEBRACEDWALL LINE(2) 912" LSL(3) 912" LSL(2) 912" LSLBRACEDWALL LINE(3.25-FT)(3.75-FT)(3) 912" LSLCONSTRUCT RIGIDSHEAR PANEL ASSHOWN IN 3/S46x6 POST w/ STANDARDPOST CAP AND BASE TYP.(2) 2x10 OMIT PORCH BEAM IFGABLE ROOF TRUSSSTRUCTURALLY SPANSBETWEEN POSTS TYP.(2)2x10(2) 1178" LSLEXTENDED HEADERCONSTRUCT PORTAL FRAMEAS SHOWN IN 1/S4 SIM.BRACEDWALL LINE(2.5-FT)(2.5-FT)(2) 912" LSL(3) 912" LSL OR (3) 2x12(8-FT)ONE-SIDED (14.5-FT) ONE-SIDED(6-FT)(2)2x8 (4-FT)(4-FT)(4-FT)(3-FT)BRACEDWALL LINE(6.5-FT)(7-FT)(6-FT)18'-11"± MAX. STAIR TALL WOOD WALLS TOBE CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:·2x6 LSL @ 12" O.C. TYPICAL FULL HEIGHTWALL FRAMING (BALLOON FRAMED) - IFDETERMINED TO BE EXPOSURE 'B',FRAMING MAY BE 2x6 LSL @ 16" O.C.·SEE PLAN FOR BEARING AND KING STUDS·PROVIDE 2x BLOCKING BETWEEN STUDSAT 10'-0" O.C. MAX. VERTICAL SPACINGOVER HEIGHT OF WALL·INFILL FRAMING LESS THAN 16'-0" MAY BE2x6 SPF AT 16" O.C.·TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES MAY BESYP/SPF(1) 2x6 LSL BRGSTUD AND (2) 2x6LSL KING STUDSFULL HEIGHTLATERALLY BRACE TOPOF GABLE END WALLSPER TRUSS SUPPLIERREAR BONUS ROOMWALL IS WITHIN ROOFSYSTEM - SEE MAINLEVEL PLAN FORWALL BRACINGROOF TRUSSES SPANNINGOVER STAIR ASSUMED TOSPAN FULL TO REARFAMILY ROOM WALL -VERIFY MINIMUM DEPTHBY SUPPLIER TYP.6x6 POST w/ STANDARDPOST CAP AND BASE TYP.ROOM-IN-ATTIC ROOM-IN-ATTIC ROOM-IN-ATTIC ROOM-IN-ATTIC ROOM-IN-ATTIC PLAN NOTES:1. ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SEE FRAMINGNOTES 1 TO 3 ON S1 FOR MORE INFO. BEARING FOR HEADERS AND BEAMSONLY NOTED ON PLAN WHEN EXCEEDING FRAMING NOTE REQUIREMENTS.2. VERIFY TRUSS LAYOUT WITH SUPPLIER. PROVIDE (2) 2x4 OR 2x6 BRG STUDSAT EACH END OF ALL GIRDER TRUSSES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.TRUSS SUPPLIER TO VERIFY ADEQUATE BEARING AREA FOR TRUSSMEMBERS.3. REFER TO FRAMING NOTES ON S1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.4. PARTY WALL AND FIRE RATING REQUIREMENTS ARE BY OTHERS.5. UNITS MAY BE MIRRORED - SEE HOUSE PLANS FOR BUILDING SPECIFICCONFIGURATION.6. NON-STRUCTURAL SLAB-ON-GRADE CONSTRUCTION IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER. SUB-BASE PREPARATION, PLACEMENT,CURING, SEALING, CONTROL JOINT LAYOUT, AND RADON CONTROLMETHODS ARE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODEREQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE.7. REFER TO FOUNDATION NOTES ON S1 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.8. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH BUILDER PLANS PRIOR TOFOUNDATION PLACEMENT.312 x 514 PSL- SEE FRAMINGNOTE 14DASH-DOT LINEINDICATESGIRDER TRUSSBY SUPPLIERTYP.INDICATES ROOFTRUSS SPANBY SUPPLIERTYP.TRUSS SPANS SHOWNSEPARATED ATBEARING WALLS MAYBE ONE TRUSSCONTINUOUS OVERBEARING BY SUPPLIERTYP.LATERALLY BRACE TOPOF GABLE END WALLSPER TRUSS SUPPLIERBRACEDWALL LINEBRACED WALL LINE (2) 912" LSL(3) 1178" LSL(2) 912" LSLBRACED WALL LINE(3.25-FT)(3.75-FT)(3) 912" LSLCONSTRUCT RIGIDSHEAR PANEL ASSHOWN IN 3/S46x6 POST w/ STANDARDPOST CAP AND BASE TYP.(2) 2x10 OMIT PORCH BEAM IFGABLE ROOF TRUSSSTRUCTURALLY SPANSBETWEEN POSTS TYP.(2) 912"LSL(2) 1178" LSLEXTENDED HEADERCONSTRUCT PORTAL FRAMEAS SHOWN IN 1/S4 SIM.BRACEDWALL LINE(2.5-FT)(2.5-FT)(2) 912" LSL(3) 912" LSL OR (3) 2x12(10-FT) ONE-SIDED (14.5-FT) ONE-SIDED (2) 2x8 (4-FT)(4-FT)(4-FT)(3-FT)BRACEDWALL LINE(6.5-FT)(7-FT)(9-FT)312 x 514 PSL- SEE FRAMINGNOTE 14(3) 2x6 BRG(3) 2x6 BRG(2) 912"LSL(2) 2x10BRACED WALL LINE BRACED WALL LINEBRACEDWALL LINE(4-FT)ONE-SIDED(4-FT)ONE-SIDED(4-FT)ONE-SIDED(4-FT)(4-FT) (2.5-FT)(2.33-FT) (6-FT)(3) 2x4BRG S4FRAMING DETAILGARAGE FRONT PORTAL FRAME1NOTEINFO APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY ACROSS DETAIL.2'-2"±16'-112"±9'-118"±FASTEN TOP PLATE TO HEADER w/ (2)ROWS 16d SINKER NAILS @ 3" O.C.(1) 2x4 BEARING STUD & (1) 2x4 FULLHEIGHT STUD EACH END OF HEADERLOCATE PANEL JOINT WITHIN 2'-0" FROMCENTER OF HEADER HEIGHT AS REQ'D (2x SOLIDBLOCKING REQUIRED AT SHEATHING JOINT)(3) 2x4 BEARING STUDS MIN.(2) 2x4 BEARING STUDS MIN. AT SIM.PROVIDE 2x4 INFILL WALLABOVE HEADER AS REQ'DSIMPSON STHD14 EMBEDDED HOLDOWNANCHOR AT LOCATIONS SHOWN(REFER TO 4/S4 FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS)FOUNDATION WALL BELOWLENGTH OF CONTINUOUS HEADER(2) 58"Ø ANCHOR BOLTS (7" MIN. EMBED)w/ 2" x 2" x 316" PLATE WASHERSNAIL SHEATHING TO HEADER w/ 8dNAILS @ 3" O.C. EA. WAY TYP.SMALL HATCH AREA INDICATES 716" ORTHICKER PLYWOOD OR OSB SHEATHINGAPPLIED TO EXTERIOR SIDE OF STUDS(NAIL SHEATHING AROUND PERIMETER w/ (2)ROWS 8d NAILS @ 3" O.C. STAGGERED & TOPLATES / BLOCKING @ 3" O.C.)SIMPSON MSTC40 STRAP ON INSIDE FACEOF WALL (PROVIDE SPACER TO FLUSHOUT HEADER TO WALL STUD THICKNESS)FASTEN KING STUD TO HEADER w/(2) ROWS 16d SINKER NAILS @ 3" O.C.LARGE HATCH AREA INDICATES 716" ORTHICKER PLYWOOD OR OSB SHEATHINGAPPLIED TO EXTERIOR SIDE OF STUDSw/ STANDARD 6"/12" NAILINGFASTEN FRAMING ABOVE ASSHOWN FOR BRACED WALL PANELSCONTINUOUS LSL/LVL HEADER - SEE PLAN2'-2"±PROVIDE DOUBLE STUDS ATEACH END OF SHEARWALL(MAY USE BEARING/KINGSTUDS AS REQ'D)SEE PLAN AND FRAMINGNOTED FOR HEADER ANDSUPPORTING STUDSHATCHED AREA INDICATES 716" ORTHICKER PLYWOOD/OSB EXTERIORSHEATHING FASTENED TO STUDS w/8d NAILS @ 4" O.C. AT PANEL EDGES& @ 12" O.C. AT INTERIOR SUPPORTSTYPICAL 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.PERFORATED SHEARWALL RAISEDABOVE FLOOR SYSTEM2S4FRAMING DETAILFASTEN FRAMING ABOVE ASSHOWN FOR BRACED WALL PANELSNOTEINFO APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY ACROSS DETAIL.Project Number:Date:S44Sheets: ofPrint Name:Signed: License Number:Trevor Axner45470Date:I hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineerunder the laws of the State of Minnesota.3407 Kilmer Lane NorthSuite 4Plymouth, MN 55441Tel 612-708-3572www.hansongroupmn.com©COPYRIGHT HANSON GROUP, LLC 2021M/I Homes5354 Parkdale Drive, #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416POST-INSTALLED HOLDOWN OPTIONS4S4FRAMING DETAILCONCRETEFOUNDATIONBELOWSIMPSON HTT5HOLDOWN ANCHOR ATLOCATIONS SHOWNNAILED TO DOUBLESTUDS AND BOLTED w/12"Ø x 12" LONG SIMPSONTITEN HD SCREW-INANCHOR INTOCONCRETEDescriptionDateIssued4LENGTH OF CONTINUOUS HEADERRIGID SHEAR PANELFRAMING DETAILNOTEINFO APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY ACROSS DETAIL.SMALL HATCH AREA INDICATES 716" ORTHICKER PLYWOOD OR OSB SHEATHINGAPPLIED TO EXTERIOR SIDE OF STUDS(NAIL SHEATHING AROUND PERIMETER w/(2) ROWS 8d NAILS @ 3" O.C. STAGGERED& TO PLATES / BLOCKING @ 3" O.C.)(2) SIMPSON LSTA24 STRAPS ON INSIDEFACE OF WALL (PROVIDE SPACER TO FLUSHOUT HEADER TO WALL STUD THICKNESS)FASTEN FRAMING ABOVE AS SHOWNFOR BRACED WALL PANELSCONTINUOUS LSL HEADER- SEE PLANFASTEN TOP PLATE TO HEADER w/ (2)ROWS 16d SINKER NAILS @ 3" O.C.LOCATE PANEL JOINT WITHIN 2'-0" FROM CENTEROF HEADER HEIGHT AS REQ'D (2x SOLIDBLOCKING REQUIRED AT SHEATHING JOINT)NAIL SHEATHING TO HEADER w/ 8dNAILS @ 3" O.C. EA. WAY TYP.LARGER HATCHED AREA INDICATES 716" ORTHICKER PLYWOOD OR OSB SHEATHINGAPPLIED TO EXTERIOR SIDE OF STUDSw/ STANDARD 6"/12" NAILING PATTERNFASTEN KING STUD TOHEADER w/ (2) ROWS 16dSINKER NAILS @ 3" O.C.2x6 WALL FRAMING AT 16" O.C.1'-6"±1'-6"±S43SIMPSON STHD14 EMBEDDED HOLDOWNANCHOR AT LOCATIONS SHOWN(REFER TO 4/S4 FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS)(3) 2x6 BEARING STUDS9'-118"±(1) 2x6 BEARING STUD &(1) 2x6 KING STUD EACHEND OF HEADER1.507The Lakeside CollectionTwinhomesMinnesota ConstructionSeptember 17, 20219-17-212'-214"± AT SIM.2'-214"± AT SIM.SIMPSON STHD14 HOLDOWN ANCHORFASTENED TO DOUBLE STUDS(REFER TO 4/S4 FOR POST-INSTALLEDHOLDOWN OPTION)CONCRETE FOUNDATION BELOW -STANDARD ANCHOR BOLTS NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITYCONCRETE FOUNDATION BELOW -STANDARD ANCHOR BOLTS NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITY TYPICAL FIREBLOCKINGTYPICAL EAVE / SOFFIT CONSTRUCTIONTYPICAL FLOOR CONSTRUCTIONUNIT UNITMAIN FLOORUPPER FLOORTYP WALL ANCHOR1Exterior Wall SectionTYPICAL FRAME WALL CONSTRUCTIONSIDING CONDITIONTYPICAL ROOF CONSTRUCTIONPASSIVE SUB-SLABDEPRESSURIZATION RADONCONTROL SYSTEMRadonVent Detail2Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity: Address: City: Sheet Title: 5354 Parkdale Dr. #100 St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200 Lot: Block: Date By These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. All drawings and specifications are instruments of service copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must be returned upon request. These plans are for construction purposes only. These plans may vary from model homes and marketing materials. Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner. These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17"Date:Drawn By:Job #X X Final Approval Date minneapolispermits@MIHOMES.com Addition:PFG01-14-2020-------COMMUNITY STREET ADDRESS CITY, MN SLAB LAKESIDE CUSTOMER -- --AD1 TYPICAL ROOF CONSTRUCTION TYPICAL FLOOR CONSTRUCTION TYPICAL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION TYPICAL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION - ATTIC TYPICAL FLOOR CONSTRUCTION CL CL UNIT UNIT MAIN FLOOR UPPER FLOOR UNIT UNIT MAIN FLOOR UPPER FLOOR 1 Typical Dwelling Unit Separation 2 At Lower Level Floor Line Dwelling Unit Separation 3 At Intermediate Floor Line Dwelling Unit Separation 4 At Roof/ Ceiling Line Dwelling Unit Separation CL 5 At Soffit Dwelling Unit Separation Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity:Address:City:Sheet Title:5354 Parkdale Dr. #100St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200Lot: Block:Date ByThese plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Alldrawings and specifications are instruments ofservice copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must bereturned upon request. These plans are forconstruction purposes only. These plans may varyfrom model homes and marketing materials.Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner.These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes.Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17" Date: Drawn By: Job #XXFinal ApprovalDateminneapolispermits@MIHOMES.comAddition:PFG 01-14-2020 -------COMMUNITYSTREET ADDRESSCITY, MNSLAB LAKESIDECUSTOMER-- -- AD2 AT EXTERIOR SOFFITSEPARATION ASSEMBLYTYPICAL FIRE RATEDSeparation At Exterior SoffitPartial Wall Section2Window - SidingSill at Frame WallWindow - SidingJamb at Frame WallWindow - SidingHead at Frame WallWindow - StoneSill at Frame WallWindow - StoneJamb at Frame WallWindow - StoneHead at Frame WallFlashing at Door OpeningsFlashing at Window Openings132345678910Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity: Address: City: Sheet Title: 5354 Parkdale Dr. #100 St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200 Lot: Block: Date By These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. All drawings and specifications are instruments of service copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must be returned upon request. These plans are for construction purposes only. These plans may vary from model homes and marketing materials. Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner. These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17"Date:Drawn By:Job #X X Final Approval Date minneapolispermits@MIHOMES.com Addition:PFG01-14-2020-------COMMUNITY STREET ADDRESS CITY, MN SLAB LAKESIDE CUSTOMER -- --AD3 Inside Corner At SidingFraming DetailParallel Roof Truss ConnectionFraming DetailSTC Clip ConnectionFraming DetailEave at SidingValley FlashingOutside Corner At SidingFraming DetailGarage Door JambFraming DetailAt Dwelling unit SeparationFraming DetailAt Dwelling unit SeparationFraming detailLadder Panel - Interior/Exterior Wall IntersectionFraming DetailRake at Siding123654987121110Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity: Address: City: Sheet Title: 5354 Parkdale Dr. #100 St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200 Lot: Block: Date By These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. All drawings and specifications are instruments of service copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must be returned upon request. These plans are for construction purposes only. These plans may vary from model homes and marketing materials. Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner. These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17"Date:Drawn By:Job #X X Final Approval Date minneapolispermits@MIHOMES.com Addition:PFG01-14-2020-------COMMUNITY STREET ADDRESS CITY, MN SLAB LAKESIDE CUSTOMER -- --AD4 Attic AccessFraming DetailRim JoistFraming DetailStair Stringer at Floor (Top)Stair Stringer at Landing (Bot)Stair Stringer at FloorBalloon Framing123456Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity: Address: City: Sheet Title: 5354 Parkdale Dr. #100 St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200 Lot: Block: Date By These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. All drawings and specifications are instruments of service copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must be returned upon request. These plans are for construction purposes only. These plans may vary from model homes and marketing materials. Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner. These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17"Date:Drawn By:Job #X X Final Approval Date minneapolispermits@MIHOMES.com Addition:PFG01-14-2020-------COMMUNITY STREET ADDRESS CITY, MN SLAB LAKESIDE CUSTOMER -- --AD5 Wall Mounted HandrailStair DetailSECTIONPLANPlumbing / Heating Supply AtExterior Wall/ Dwelling Unit SeparationWall DetailHalf Wall Framing DetailPlanBBSection B-BCountertopInterior DetailMultiple Member Connections1 3/4" WIDTH PIECESASSEMBLY 'A'ASSEMBLY 'B'ASSEMBLY 'C'MAXIMUM UNIFORM LOAD APPLIED TO EITHER OUTSIDE MEMBER (PLF)Notching And DrillingFraming DetailCutting & NotchingBored Holes6549871011Drawing No.Revisions / Custom OptionsCommunity: Address: City: Sheet Title: 5354 Parkdale Dr. #100 St. Louis Park, MN 55416763.586.7200 Lot: Block: Date By These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. All drawings and specifications are instruments of service copyrighted by M/I Homes, Inc. and must be returned upon request. These plans are for construction purposes only. These plans may vary from model homes and marketing materials. Contractor to verify suitability of plans with owner. These plans are exclusive property of M/I Homes. Model:Elevation:Client:This drawing is intended to be printed at 22"x34". Drawing is half scale when printed at 11"x17"Date:Drawn By:Job #X X Final Approval Date minneapolispermits@MIHOMES.com Addition:PFG01-14-2020-------COMMUNITY STREET ADDRESS CITY, MN SLAB LAKESIDE CUSTOMER -- --AD6 OUTLOT B OUTLOT E OUTLOT H 1 2 3 4 7 8 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20191817 3 2 1 6 5 4 9 8 7 4 1 2 3 65 5 1 210 21 1 6 5 4 3 2 OUTLOT C 10 2 9876 5 4 11 3 1 OUTLOT A 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 4 3 6 7 8 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 7 8 12 O U T L O T D 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 F1 F2 F3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 F4 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B OUTLOT C OUTLOT E OUTLOT F OUTLOT G WETLAND 10 WETLAND 9 WETLAND 6 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 3 WETLAND 4 WETLAND 11 M H H G-C G-C G-C G-C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>13003938.7513002 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>XYLOID AVEWALNUT L N WALNUT LNWALNUT LN X Y L O I D A V E X Y L O I D A V E79TH AVE 79TH P L A C E 79 T H A V E 79TH AVE7 8 T H P L A C E 80TH AVEC O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 C O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 0 150 300 N SIDEWALK 8' W. TRAIL SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PRINT NAME: SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO.REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 05/13/2022 - 6:29amDrawing name: C:\pw_stn_bh_infra01\dms95614\193805500PUDC100.dwgXrefs:, 193804970XSXW, 193804970XSXT, 193804970XSNO-PH 2, 193804970XSPV - PH 1, 193804970XSPV - PH 2, 193805500PUDXBRD, 193804970XSXV, 193804970XSNO-PH 1THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.M/I HOMESRUSH CREEK RESERVE, CORCORAN, MN1938055002335 Highway 36 WSt. Paul, MN 55113www.stantec.comFINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 2DAVID AHRENS2/11/2022217112/11/22PUD Submittal OVERALL SITE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLANC1.00 EX. PHASE 1 FUTURE PHASES 10' W. TRAIL FROM CR10 TO END OF 80TH AVE 10' W. TRAIL FROM CR10 TO END OF 80TH AVE 12' W. TRAIL AND EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS FUTURE PHASES LEGEND EXISTING SIDEWALK PROPOSED SIDEWALK EXISTING TRAIL PROPOSED TRAIL PHASE 2 PHASE 2 M E E E E E E E CC CCCCC C H O H POHPOHPOHP F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O - C F O -C F O -C F O-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C FO-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C G-C E E E E 13 14 OHP OHP OHPOHPO H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P OHPOHPO H POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHP O H P llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > > > > > > > >XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>>>>>>7 8 T H P L A C E 78TH PLACE C O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 CO RD NO 116 HAMEL MN 55340 JOSEPH ANDRES 8220 CAIN RD CORCORAN MN 55340 10-50 PROPERTIES LLC 4279 HAWKSBURY CIR EAGAN MN 55123 CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 CO RD NO 116 CORCORAN MN 55340 DALE & PATRICIA PATNODE 1200 NICOLLET AVE #209 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 DALE PATNODE 1200 NICOLLET MALL #209 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 PERRY W & MARGARET L MILLER 20102 COUNTY RD #10 HAMEL MN 55340 ST THOMA 20020 CO HAMEL MN SCOTT & MARIE TREPTAU NH 1NA 1 FF 1VF 1 NA 1 HO 1 SWO 4 VF 3 KC 2 HO 2 KC 2AS 1 SWO 3 EA2 2 PN 2 CB 5PP 2 MK 7 CB 6 EA2 4 PC 3 FF 2 CB 6PN 3 MK 11 AS 1 SWO 2 PC 2 PP 1 CB 6 SWO 2 EA2 2 BH 5 EA2 2 CB 9 KC 2 EA2 3 BH 2 MK 9 BH 1 PP 2 CB 9 12 NA 3 SM 1 SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO. REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 05/13/2022 - 10:47amDrawing name: C:\pw_stn_bh_infra01\dms95614\193805500PUDL101.dwgXrefs:, 193805500PUDXBRD, 193804970XSXW, 193804970XSXT, 193804970XSXV, 193804970XSNO-PH 1, 193804970XSNO-PH 2, 193804970XSPV - PH 1, 193804970XSPV - PH 2, 193804970XSNO-CR10, 193804970XSNF-PH 3, 193804970XSNF-PH 1, 193804970XSNF-PH 2THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.M/I HOMESRUSH CREEK RESERVE, CORCORAN, MN 193805500FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 2JACOB BURGSTAHLER2/11/2022544762/11/22PUD Submittal L1.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN ---- MINNESOTA. N 0 50 100 5' WIDE SIDEWALK 28'ROAD(TYP.)50'ROW(TYP.)SEE SHEET L1.02 MAP KEY 1 CITY REVIEW 04/07/221 REVISED PLAT 05/06/222 2 P PX PX E E E E E F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O - C F O -C F O - C F O - C F O -C F O - C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C F O -C CLVT 5 8 O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P W A L N U T L A N E X Y L O I D L A N E 7 8 T H P L A C E79THAVE79THPLACE 79TH PLACE 79TH AVE 7 8 T H P L A C E C O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 ROBERT & THERESA CROUSE 20301 CO RD NO 10 HAMEL MN 55340 EA104SH68CG100SH28IR 1FF 1KC 1 SWO 1 CH 1 HO 1 HO 1 RB 1 SWO 1 PG 3 SM 4 IR 2 FF 1HO 1 BF 1 PG 1 RB 4 SL 4 CH 1 VF 4 SWO 2 NA 2 KC 1 HO 1 NH 3 SL 1 FF 1 IR 1 BH 2 MK 2 PN 1 PP 1 BH 2 EA2 5 PN 1 AS 1 EA2 3 SWO 1 CB 4 SY 3 NH 3 NH 1 NA 1 NH 1 HO 1 KC 3 IR 1 FF 1 SWO 1 SM 1 FF 1 SWO 1 PG 4 VF 3 RB 1HO 1RB 1 HO 1 RB 1 NH 2 SWO 4 NA 3 SWO 4 PG 3 SM 3 VF 3 KC 2 SWO 2 EA2 CB 9 KC 2 EA2 3 PN 2 FM 1 AS 1 BH 2 MK 9 BH 1 PP 2 CB 9 SWO 1 SL 2 BH 4 CB 5 PP 3 FM 2 MK 11 CB 4 IR 1 FM 2 PP 2 CB 13 AS 12 QR 1 IR 1 RB 1 SY 3 SL 1 HO 1 FF 2 AS 1 BH 4 SWO 1 PN 3 FF 2 PP 2 PC 3 SWO 3 BH 2 QR 2 BH 5 FF 2 HO 1 NA 3KC 1 IR 1VF 1 SL 4 VF 1 BF 1 IR 2 IR 1 SWO 3 IR 1 SM 2 RB 1 FF 1 KC 1 VF 1 HO 1 CH 1 VF 1 SL 1 RB 1 SM 1 PG 1 NA 3 HO 1 PG 1 HO 1 KC 2 FF 1 VF 1 BO 1 SY 3 PG 1 IR 1 SWO 5 SM 1 CH 3 PG 2 SY 3 CB 5 CB 4 CB 4 CB 4 EA2 4 CB 6 CB 6 SM 3 SWO 1 EA2 13 EA2 5 SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO. REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 05/13/2022 - 9:26amDrawing name: C:\pw_stn_bh_infra01\dms95614\193805500PUDL101.dwgXrefs:, 193805500PUDXBRD, 193804970XSXW, 193804970XSXT, 193804970XSXV, 193804970XSNO-PH 1, 193804970XSNO-PH 2, 193804970XSPV - PH 1, 193804970XSPV - PH 2, 193804970XSNO-CR10, 193804970XSNF-PH 3, 193804970XSNF-PH 1, 193804970XSNF-PH 2THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.M/I HOMESRUSH CREEK RESERVE, CORCORAN, MN 193805500FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 2JACOB BURGSTAHLER2/11/2022544762/11/22PUD Submittal L1.02 LANDSCAPE PLAN ---- MINNESOTA. N 0 50 100 5' WIDE SIDEWALK 5' WIDE SIDEWALK 10' WIDE TRAIL 5' WIDE SIDEWALK 5' WIDE SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT (TYP.)50'ROW (TYP.)28'ROAD(TYP.)2 8' R O A D (T Y P.) 5 0' R O W( T Y P.)28'ROAD(TYP.)50'ROW (TYP.)50'ROW (TYP.)28'ROAD(TYP.)2 8' R O A D ( T Y P.) 5 0' R O W( T Y P .) 10' WIDE TRAIL 8 0' R O W(T Y P.) FUTURE TURN LANES TO BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS SEE SHEET L1.04 SEE SHEET L1.03 SEE SHEET L1.01 50'ROW(TYP.)MAP KEY LANDSCAPE BERM 1 CITY REVIEW 04/07/221 PX PX PX PX P X PX PX WETLAND 10 WETLAND 9 WETLAND 6 WETLAND 8 WETLAND 11 E E PROPANE TANK SS ROCK FLAG WELL FO-C FO-C F O - C F O-C F O -C F O - C F O - C F O - C 2 3 6 O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P O H P OHP OHP WALNUTLANE XYLOID LANE W A L N U T L A N E XYLOIDLANE7 9T H P L A C E 79TH PLACE THOMAS J & SUSAN STOCK 7202 TOPVIEW RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 JOHN C GLEASON 20310 CO RD NO 10 HAMEL MN 55340 SURVEY LINE PER HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 10, PLAT 8 NE CORNER OF THE NE1/4 OF THE SW1/4 OF THE SEC. 23, T119, R 23 E. LINE OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC. 23, T119, R23 RB 1 SWO 5 BF 2 IR 1 PG 2 SM 1 BO 1 FF 1 SM 1 BO 1 HO 1 KC 2 SWO 2 NA 1SL 1 FF 1 BO 2 SY 3 BF 3 CH 3 IR 3 NA 3 BO 1 FF 1 HO 1 SM 1 SY 1 NA 1 SWO 1 CH 1 VF 1 BO 1 FF 1 VF 1 SM 1 VF 3 VF 2 NH 3 BO 1 BF 1 SL 2 VF 1 SM 1 HO 1 RB 1 SM 1 SM 1 CH 1 KC 1 HO 1 KC 2 BF 1 FF 1 CH 3 BO 1 FF 1 PG 1 IR 1 SWO 1 RB 1 SM 1 CH 2 FF 1 IR 1 NH 2VF 2 HO 2 VF 2 IR 1 SY 2 IR 1 KC 1 BO 1 NA 5 IR 2 SWO 5 BF 1 VF 1 SL 2 VF 2 HO 1 VF 1 SY 2 RB 1 NH 1 RB 1 HO 2 SL 2 SM 3 IR 2PG 1 SL 1 NA 1 SWO 2 BF 1 CH 5 IR 1RB 1 SY 2 KC 1 HO 1 BF 3 HO 1 KC 1 IR 1 FF 1 RB 1 VF 1 SY 4 VF 2 FF 1 SM 1 SY 1 VF 1BF 1 SWO 1 NA 1 HO 1 KC 1 FF 1 SY 2 FF 1 PG 4 NA 1 BF 2VF 4 IR 3 HO 1 IR 1 FF 1 VF 1 PG 1 SM 1 FF 1 SY 1 VF 2 PN 2 BF 3 SWO 5 HO 1 SM 2 BF 2 SWO 1 SY 1 SL 1 IR 2 SL 1 SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO. REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 05/13/2022 - 9:27amDrawing name: C:\pw_stn_bh_infra01\dms95614\193805500PUDL101.dwgXrefs:, 193805500PUDXBRD, 193804970XSXW, 193804970XSXT, 193804970XSXV, 193804970XSNO-PH 1, 193804970XSNO-PH 2, 193804970XSPV - PH 1, 193804970XSPV - PH 2, 193804970XSNO-CR10, 193804970XSNF-PH 3, 193804970XSNF-PH 1, 193804970XSNF-PH 2THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.M/I HOMESRUSH CREEK RESERVE, CORCORAN, MN 193805500FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 2JACOB BURGSTAHLER2/11/2022544762/11/22PUD Submittal L1.04 LANDSCAPE PLAN ---- MINNESOTA. N 0 50 100 5' WIDE SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT (TYP.) 2 8 'ROAD(TYP . ) 5 0 'ROW( T Y P . ) WETLAND PROTECTION SIGN (TYP.) 5' WIDE SIDEWALK 28' ROAD (TYP.) 50'ROW (TYP.) 8' WIDE TRAIL 8' WIDE TRAIL STREET LIGHT (TYP.) 5' WIDE SIDEWALK2 8'ROAD(TYP.)50'ROW(TYP.)5' WIDE SIDEWALK STREET LIGHT (TYP.)SEE SHEET L1.05 SEE SHEET L1.02SEE SHEET C1.04 MAP KEY 1 CITY REVIEW 04/07/221 SEE DETAIL C/L106 SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO.WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORTAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAPRINT NAME:SIGNATURE:DATE:LIC. NO. REVISION CHECKED Plot Date: 05/13/2022 - 9:29amDrawing name: C:\pw_stn_bh_infra01\dms95614\193805500PUDL101.dwgXrefs:, 193805500PUDXBRD, 193804970XSXW, 193804970XSXT, 193804970XSXV, 193804970XSNO-PH 1, 193804970XSNO-PH 2, 193804970XSPV - PH 1, 193804970XSPV - PH 2, 193804970XSNO-CR10, 193804970XSNF-PH 3, 193804970XSNF-PH 1, 193804970XSNF-PH 2THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THEDRAWING - ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO STANTEC WITHOUT DELAY.THE COPYRIGHTS TO ALL DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STANTEC. REPRODUCTIONOR USE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY STANTEC IS FORBIDDEN.M/I HOMESRUSH CREEK RESERVE, CORCORAN, MN 193805500FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PHASE 2JACOB BURGSTAHLER2/11/2022544762/11/22PUD Submittal L1.07 PLANTING DETAILS ---- MINNESOTA. R .50 PLANT SPACING (ON CENTER) P (FT.) P= PLANT SPACING, R= ROW SPACING .43 R (FT.) .67 .58 .83 .72 1.00 .87 1.25 1.08 1.50 1.30 2.00 1.73 2.50 2.17 3.00 2.60 4.00 3.46 5.00 4.33 6.00 5.20 P P EQ.EQ. PLANTING AS SHOWN ON PLANS STEEL EDGING: 3/16" (7 GAUGE), 6" DEPTH, TOP OF EDGING FLUSH WITH GRADE, COLOR AS SPECIFIED TURF/ SOD AS SPECIFIED STEEL ANCHORING STAKES: 10 GAUGE, 12" LENGTH, 4 STAKES PER EACH 10', INSTALL ON BED SIDE OF EDGER. COLOR AS SPECIFIED UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL NOTE: - CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SAMPLES OF STEEL EDGING AND COLOR OPTIONS FOR APPROVAL. - SEE PLANS FOR LOCATION OF STEEL EDGING. STEEL EDGING LOCATED BETWEEN SOD AND PERENNIAL PLANTING AREAS AND TYPICAL EDGER DETAIL BETWEEN PLANTING AREAS AND NATURALIZED AREAS. Memo To:Kevin Mattson PE Public Works Director From: Project/File:04908 Date: Kent Torve, PE City Engineer May 19, 2022 Reference: Preliminary Findings -- Horseshoe Bend Drainage Feasibility Study Introduction The City authorized a feasibility study for the ditch and culvert drainage system at Horseshoe Bend Drive and Rolling Hills Road. Drainage in the area was reviewed as part of the Garages Too development which is the top portion of the Horseshoe Bend drainage area. The focus of the study is to address the overtopping issues from the south side of Horseshoe Bend Drive over to the north, along with longer term saturated low areas (yards) along Rolling Hills Road. The study is still underway and this update is provided for the Garages Too Council meeting (final plat approval). Progress to Date The work completed to date consists of; Garages Too provided downstream initial ditch analysis (modeling) and surveying City has expanded the model along Rolling Hills Road to the north and east City conducted supplemental surveying of culverts and surveyed a wetland outlet on private property. Note: Permission to access the private property for the wetland outlet was delayed in early winter and once permission was granted the study was restarted. The attached figure shows the locations involved. Existing Conditions As noted, the ditch system overtops Horseshoe Bend road in a few locations and this analysis will look at the improvements that potentially include: Ditch regrading Culvert replacement or enlargement Low area drainage improvements for more efficient movement of runoff The 10-year event is being analyzed since this is the standard event for public system drainage management. Agenda Item: 8d. Preliminary Findings Modeling and investigation activities to date show that a significant project would improve conveyance through the system. As a baseline study, we are the extent of a proposed improvement project to convey a 10-year stormwater event. This is the same design event that is used for newer residential stormwater collection systems. The project would (potentially) involve: Improvements in culvert capacity -- upsizing culverts one or two sizes for example changing an existing 15 inch to an 18- inch or 24- inch that would also involve driveway repair or reconfiguration. Regrading ditches – reestablishing a defined flowpath within older ditches by digging them deeper and possibly wider. This requires coordination with small utilities and often temporary easements within the properties so that the backslopes of the ditches can be constructed to a mowable slope without impacting lawns significantly. Road crossings—Replacing the existing roadway crossings to increase conveyance under Horseshoe Bend and Rolling Hills Road are significant construction efforts that involve small utilities, road replacement, etc. Permitting will be complicated with wetland delineations and any increased flow rates are reviewed for downstream impacts throughout the system by the City and the WMO. The downstream impact of more efficient movement of drainage to the wetland east of Rolling Hills Road would be a focal point of reviews. Therefore, the wetland outlet analysis is critical to the project understanding. o Should the Horseshoe Bend project significantly raise water levels in the private wetland, that outlet would be analyzed for an increased pipe size. This would trigger more downstream analysis as part of the design effort. Deliverable and Schedule The final feasibility study will present alternatives and increased driveway culvert capacity is an obvious option, however downstream impacts will need further study throughout the complete Horseshoe Bend/Rolling Hills Road drainage system. Cost and financing options will also be discussed. The report is projected to be finished in June. 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 8e. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Nicholas Ouellette through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 17, 2022 for the May 26, 2022 City Council Meeting RE: Final Plat for “Garages Too” (PID’s 35-119-23-44-0004 and 35-119-23-41-0002) (city file no. 22-016) REVIEW DEADLINE: June 14, 2022 1.Description of Request The applicant is requesting approval of a final plat for two adjoining parcels: a 5.04-acre parcel at 22400 Highway 55 and a 1.67 acre parcel at 6315 Horseshoe Bend Drive. The plat will allow for the development of four new buildings as part of a mini storage/self storage facility. The plat will also allow for a lot line adjustment to transfer a portion of the property at 22400 Highway 55 to the property at 6315 Horseshoe Bend Drive. Key plan application materials are attached as part of this packet; however, due to size limitations not every item is included. The complete application is available at city hall. 2. Background On March 14, 2021, the Council reviewed a concept plan and indicated support for the project. On November 10, 2021, the Council approved a rezoning, site plan, conditional use permit, variance and preliminary plat for a mini storage/self storage facility and lot line adjustment. The property at 22400 Highway 55 was rezoned from Urban Reserve (UR) district to the Light Industrial (I-1) district. Variances were also approved for: a.Lot size and width standards in the UR district at 6315 Horseshoe Bend Drive; b.Lot width and front setback standards in the I-1 district at 22400 Highway 55; c.Required parking and drive aisle setbacks from the south property line at 22400 Highway 55; and d.Development without a connection to municipal sewer and water in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). 3. Context Zoning and Land Use The property at 22400 Highway 55 is zoned Light Industrial (I-1) district and guided Light Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan and includes an existing home and two detached accessory structures which will be removed as part of the development. The property at 6316 Horseshoe Bend Drive (6315 Garages Too (22-016) 2 May 26, 2022 Horseshoe Bend Drive) is zoned Urban Reserve (UR) district, guided Existing Residential and has an existing home and detached accessory structures that will remain. The site is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and the Future Study Area for sanitary sewer. is located in Stage 3 (2030-2035) and 6315 Horseshoe Bend Drive is located in Stage 4 (2035-2040) of the sanitary sewer staging plan. Surrounding Properties Properties located to the north and east of the site are zoned UR district and guided Existing Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Properties directly west and south of the size are zoned I-1 district and guided Light Industrial. Natural Characteristics of the Site There are no natural resources identified in the Natural Resource Inventory. There are trees scattered around the homesite on both properties. 4. Analysis Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, the detailed comments are included in the attached engineering memo and the approval conditions require compliance with the memo. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City’s discretion in approving a final plat is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the final plat. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Final Plat Staff has reviewed the final plat for consistency with the approved preliminary plans, as well as City policies. Staff finds that the final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plans. The final plat adjusts a common lot line between the two existing parcels. Lot Standards Both proposed lots comply with standards in the Zoning Ordinance and the preliminary approvals. A variance was granted from the lot size and width requirements in the UR district for 6315 Horseshoe Bend Drive, lot width and front setback requirements and parking/drive aisle setback requirements in the I-1 district for 22400 Highway 55. The lot line adjustment will increase the lot size of 6315 Garages Too (22-016) 3 May 26, 2022 Horseshoe Bend Drive to 2.12 acres from 1.67 acres and decrease the lot size for to 4.59 acres from 5.04 acres for 22400 Highway 55. Access Access to 6316 Horseshoe Bend Drive is from Horseshoe Bend Drive and will not be altered as part of this project. Access to the mini storage/self storage facility at 22400 Highway 55 is provided through a private driveway easement connecting with Highway 55 to the south. No access to the mini storage/self storage facility will be provided from Horseshoe Bend Drive. Access to the private driveway from Highway 55 is located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Medina. The applicant is required to obtain the required permits and comply with all access requirements from the City of Medina prior to recording the final plat. Plans provided by the applicant do not show grading for the private drive. Plans shall be revised to show grading for the private drive, including contours and spot elevations to ensure the driveway can be constructed within the existing easements or that additional easements have been acquired. The revised grading plan shall be provided to the City for review and approval prior to obtaining the required permits from the City of Medina. The City Engineer’s memo also includes comments requiring additional details for the turnaround area. Grading must be shown on the turnaround area as well, and the turnaround must meet City standards if intended for use by emergency services. The Southwest District Design Guidelines indicate that future driveways and other direct access from new developments to Highway 55 shall not be permitted. The Southwest District map shows a frontage road is proposed within the site district to collect traffic and ensure orderly and safe access to Highway 55. Staff has included a condition that if the frontage road is built to the proposed development, access will be removed from State Highway 55 and redirected to the frontage road. Parking Site plans show a graded bituminous paved parking surface with concrete curb and gutter. No designated parking spaces are provided on site. Plans show a minimum of 60 feet of separation between buildings which is adequate for parking in front of a unit and allowing traffic to pass unobstructed. Parking areas will be used on a temporary basis by customers accessing their storage units during business hours. No overnight parking is permitted. Grading and Stormwater The Engineer’s Memo provides detailed comments on grading and stormwater. A proposed stormwater filtration basin is located on both 22400 Highway 55 and Lot 2. A stormwater maintenance agreement is required for all stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities. The applicant shall own and maintain the stormwater infrastructure. The City Engineer notes a small amount of additional drainage leaves the Garages Too (22-016) 4 May 26, 2022 site through the private driveway to the south; a temporary or permanent easement shall be required for the drainage system installed in this location. Wetlands The wetland delineation report shows two small wetlands. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) conducted a site inspection and found the wetlands to be constructed wetlands and, as such, are not subject to wetland buffer and setback requirements. The TEP has approved the wetland boundary and no loss applications submitted by the applicant. Park Dedication Park dedication for industrial land uses is required at 3% of land or equivalent market value in cash. No park land dedication is proposed with this project and park dedication shall be cash-in-lieu of land. The park dedication for this project is calculated as follows: 4.59 acres x $4,498/acre = $20,645.82 TOTAL = $20,645.82 Conclusion Staff has reviewed the plans with the applicable standards outlined in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The staff report noted outstanding issues that must be addressed and we have included conditions in the attached resolution to address these issues. 5. Recommendation Move to adopt Resolution 2022-66 approving the final plat. Attachments 1. Resolution 2022-66 Approving Final Plat 2. Site Improvement Performance Agreement 3. Site Location Map 4. City Engineer’s Memo dated May 4, 2022 5. Final Plans dated April 15, 2022 6. Final Plat dated February 16, 2022 City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-66 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR “GARAGES TOO” AT 22400 HIGHWAY 55 AND 6135 HORSESHOE BEND DRIVE (PIDS 35-119-23-44-0004 and 35-119-23-41-0002) (CITY FILE NO. 22-016) WHEREAS, Craig Scherber of Garages Too, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval of a final plat for a lot line adjustment between the two properties described as follows: See Attachment A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request for a final plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. A final plat is approved in accordance with the application and plans received by the City on February 16, 2022, March 22, 2022, March 24, 2022, April 15, 2022, and May 2, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The site improvement performance agreement must be executed by the developer and the City and must be filed with the final plat. 3. Approval is subject to the preliminary approval conditions (Resolution 2021-95 and 2021- 97) 4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo dated May 4, 2022. 5. When municipal sewer and water are available to the proposed development, the developer is responsible to pay TLAC (Trunk Line Availability Charges) fees. Connection charges will be due when the connection to municipal sanitary sewer and water is made. 6. When the frontage road is constructed to the property located at 22400 Highway 55, access from Highway 55 shall be removed and redirected to the frontage road. 7. No access to the mini storage/self storage facility will be allowed from Horseshoe Bend Drive. FURTHER, prior to release of the final plat for recording: 8. The applicant shall provide revised plans showing: a. Grading for the private drive, including contours and spot elevations, to ensure the drive can be constructed within existing easements. A slope of 4:1 or flatter is required for this drive. b. Details for the private drive turn around, including contours, spot elevations and dimensions. If intended for emergency service turnaround it must comply with City standards. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-66 Page 2 of 4 9. The applicant shall revise plans to provide a temporary or permanent easement, as decided by the City Engineer, for the additional drainage that leaves the site through the private access drive. 10. The applicant is required to obtain the required permits for the private drive from Highway 55 and comply with all access requirements from the City of Medina. 11. The applicant shall obtain an Access Permit from MnDOT. 12. The applicant is responsible for obtaining approval and financing any requirements from MnDOT including for any work within or affecting the MnDOT right-of-way. 13. The turn around area and access gate are shown within the proposed additional easement area. Easement information must be provided to the City. 14. Park dedication shall be satisfied by cash-in-lieu of land. The cash-in-lieu of land amount shall be $20,645.82. 15. The following documents must be approved by the City Attorney: a. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement b. Site Improvement Performance Agreement c. Private Driveway Easement 16. Letter of credit must be in place and fees paid. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of building permits: 17. The applicant must file the final plat at Hennepin County within 2 years of the date of approval or the approval shall expire. 18. The following documents must be recorded at Hennepin County and proof of recording shall be provided to the City: a. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement b. Site Improvement Performance Agreement c. Private Driveway Easement 19. Lot and corner monuments shall be installed as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. A financial guarantee shall be required to ensure installations per City requirements. FURTHER, that the following conditions must be met prior to release of remaining escrow: 20. Any request for the City to inspect the required landscaping in order to reduce financial guarantees must be accompanied by recertification/verification of field inspection by the project Landscape Architect. A letter signed by the project Landscape Architect verifying plantings have been correctly installed in compliance with the plans and specifications will suffice. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-66 Page 3 of 4 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-66 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A THAT PART OF THE NORTH 340 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1065 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 119 NORTH, RANGE 23, WEST OF THE 5TH/ PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WEST OF THE EAST 685 FEET THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AND LOT 4, BLOCK 2, SCHNELL'S HIGHLAND ACRES 2ND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. (reserved for recording information) SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT GARAGES TOO (FILE NO. 22-016) This SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) dated _________________, 2022, is entered into by and between the CITY OF CORCORAN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and GARAGES TOO, LLC, A MINNESOTA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (the “Developer”), for Garages Too Corcoran, and shall be effective upon full execution by the City and the Developer. The City and the Developer are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “parties” or each a “party”. 1. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve a site development plan (referred to in this Agreement as the “site plan”). The site plan is for property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, addressed at: 22400 Highway 55 and 6315 Horseshoe Bend Drive, and legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto, (the “Subject Property”). 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The City approved the site plan and final plat (under City Council Resolution 2021-95, dated November 10, 2021 and City Council Resolution 2022-66, dated May 26, 2022) on the condition that the Developer enter into this Agreement, furnish the security and escrow required by it, and comply with applicable ordinances, statutes, and regulations. 3. PLANS. The Subject Property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Agreement, but are on file in the office of the City Administrator at Corcoran City Hall. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms herein shall control. Plan A: Preliminary Plat received April 15, 2022 Plan B: Final Plat received February 16, 2022 Plan C: Site Plan received April 15, 2022 Plan D: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan received May XX, 2022 Plan E: Storm Sewer Plan received April 15, 2022 Plan F: Landscape Plan received April 15, 2022 Plan G: Project and Standard Details Plan received April 15, 2022 4. IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and fully pay for the following required site improvements: • Restoration of associated disturbance of public streets • Surface water facilities and any associated public street restoration • Grading and Erosion Control • Underground Utilities • Landscaping Required by Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance • Tree Preservation • Monuments Required by Minnesota Statutes • Miscellaneous Facilities Any public improvements shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specs, City Design Standards and Standard Details. For these improvements, the Developer shall submit plans and specifications that have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer to the City for approval by the City Engineer or the City Engineer’s designated representative. 5. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement and construction of all required site improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a financial guarantee (“security”) in the form of: 1) a letter of credit from a bank (pursuant to the form attached hereto as Exhibit B); or 2) a cash deposit; or 3) a combination thereof. The form of the security shall be determined by the City at its sole discretion, and shall be in the amount of $590,975.68 (100% of the total cost of improvements, per Section 1070.050, Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance). Any bank or financial institution providing a letter of credit or other surety shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator or his/her designated representative. 6. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. All labor and work shall be performed and completed in the best and most workmanlike manner and in strict conformance with the approved plans and City Engineering Design Standards. No deviations from the approved plans will be permitted unless approved in writing by the Zoning Administrator or City Engineer or their designated representative. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City a list of contractors being considered for retention by the Developer for the performance of the work required by this Agreement. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and special conditions of this Agreement, for which reimbursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the City Engineer or their designated representative, as provided in the specifications. 7. EROSION CONTROL. Prior to initiating site grading, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. Erosion control practices must comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements which the City determines would be beneficial. All erosion control shall comply with Section 950 (Erosion Control) of the Corcoran City Code and the Corcoran Engineering Design Standards. No development, utility or street construction will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the approved erosion control plan. Further, the City shall have the authority to stop work on the Subject Property and/or withhold additional building permits or certificates of occupancy in the event that the Developer fails to comply with the approved erosion control plan. 8. STREET MAINTENANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until the streets affected by the project are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on the same and to direct attention to detours. If and when streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. In the event residences are occupied prior to completing streets, the Developer shall maintain a smooth surface and provide proper surface drainage to ensure that the streets are passable to traffic and emergency vehicles. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping streets within and around the subdivision swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill, track, or wash onto the street from Developer’s operation. 9. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all required site improvements by October 31, 2022. 10. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site development. 11. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS. A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the site, including but not limited to legal (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees), planning, permitting, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval of the site plan, the preparation of this Agreement, review of construction plans and documents. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from site approval, development or noncompliance with this Agreement. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys’ fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and attorneys’ fees. D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Agreement within 30 days after receipt. Bills not paid within 30 days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. Further, the City shall have the right to access Developer’s posted security to obtain reimbursement for unpaid invoiced amounts. Should Developer’s security be insufficient to cover any amounts owed to the City and unpaid after invoicing, the City may assess such amounts against the Subject Property. Developer, on behalf of itself and it successors and assigns, hereby waives any assessment notice requirements and any right to appeal such assessment pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429. 12. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. C. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties, and approved by the Zoning Administrator or City Engineer or their designated representative. The City’s failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer has unencumbered fee title to the Subject Property and/or has obtained consents to this Agreement, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the Subject Property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the Subject Property; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any failure to fulfill the foregoing covenants. E. Certain retaining walls will require a building permit. Retaining walls that require a building permit shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the building official evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls identified on the development plans shall be constructed before any other building permit is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. F. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. G. Failure to fulfill the terms of this Agreement by the Developer, including nonpayment of billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of building permits and certificates of occupancy, and the halting of all work on the Subject Property. H. The Developer represents to the City that the development complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision regulations, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the development does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the development until the Developer does comply. Upon the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. I. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligations hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells the project. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in conjunction with a sale of the entire land, the Developer may, without the consent of the City, assign this Contract to a limited liability company or other entity in which the Developer or an affiliate thereof has a controlling membership or other controlling ownership interest, provided that such assignee assumes in writing the obligations of Developer under this Contract and all posted security correspondingly secures the performance of the assignee. 13. DEVELOPER’S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the Subject Property. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part to the Subject Property and the Developer, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any right to appeal said assessment. 14. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: ______________________________. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to Corcoran City Hall, or mailed to the City by certified mail to the attention of the Corcoran City Administrator at the following address: Corcoran City Hall Attn: City Administrator 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 15. ESTIMATED COSTS. ITEM Total Sanitary Sewer System $0.00 Watermain System $0.00 Stormwater System $43,094.00 Street Construction $360,707.20 Street Lighting $0.00 Grading/Erosion Control $115,883.50 Landscaping/Tree Preservation $27,515.00 Setting Iron Monuments $0.00 Installing Wetland Buffer Monuments* $0.00 SUB-TOTAL: $547,199.70 Design, Admin, Insp, As-Builts (8%) $43775.98 Total: $590,975.68 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. If the City approves use of a letter of credit for posting of any portion of the security, the bank or financial institution which provides the same shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Agreement or upon receipt of notice that the security will be cancelled or otherwise lapse prior to the end of the required term and no City-approved replacement security has been provided. If the required improvements are not completed at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory to the City Engineer or designee that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City have been satisfied, with City Engineer or designee approval the security may be reduced from time to time by 75% of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the improvement and landscaping amounts certified by the Developer's engineer shall be retained as security until: (1) all improvements have been completed; (2) iron monuments for lot corners and wetland buffer monuments have been installed; and (3) all financial obligations to the City, both actual and anticipated, have been satisfied. 16. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL SURETY. Security for Improvements (Paragraph 5): $590,975.68 Engineering Escrow (Cash) $25,000 17. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Developer shall take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained until after the City’s written acknowledgment of the Developer’s successful completion of the project in compliance with all plans referenced in Section 3 above: A. Commercial general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, competed operations and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner’s Contractor’s Policy with limits against bodily injury, including death, and property damage (to include, but not be limited to damages caused by erosion or flooding) which may arise out of Developer’s work or the work of any of its subcontractors. B. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not be less than $750,000.00 for one person and $1,500,000.00 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall not be less than $2,000,000.00 for each occurrence. C. Worker’s compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, if applicable. D. Developer shall file a Certificate of Insurance with the City Administrator prior to commencing site grading. The City and the City Engineer shall be named as Additional Insureds on a primary and non-contributory basis on the Certificate. The Certificate shall be modified to bear the following language: “Should any of the above policies be canceled, materially changed, or not renewed before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company shall give thirty (30) days written notice of the same to the Certificate Holder. In the event of cancellation due to non-payment, ten (10) day’s written notice shall be given to the Certificate Holder.” Developer shall be responsible for providing the above language to its insurer. The City does not warranty that these amounts will be sufficient to cover all Developer liability related to the work on the Subject Property and Developer shall be responsible for conducting its own analysis of the appropriate levels of coverage. CITY OF CORCORAN BY: Tom McKee, Mayor (SEAL) AND Jessica Beise, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of___________________, 20___, by Tom McKee and Jessica Beise, the Mayor and Interim City Administrator of the City of Corcoran, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC SKIES LIMIT, LLC By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF _______________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _________________, 20___, by __________________ the _________________ of _______________________, on behalf of the ______________________. NOTARY PUBLIC EXHIBIT A (the “Subject Property”) Legal Description of the Property Being Final Platted as: THAT PART OF THE NORTH 340 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1065 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 119 NORTH, RANGE 23, WEST OF THE 5TH/ PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WEST OF THE EAST 685 FEET THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AND LOT 4, BLOCK 2, SCHNELL'S HIGHLAND ACRES 2ND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. EXHIBIT B IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT TEMPLATE Letter of Credit No.: Date: TO: City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55430 RE: (*Insert project name/address) Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of _____________________________, and in your favor, our irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $_________________, for the purpose of _____________________ available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned financial institution. To draw on the Letter of Credit, the draft letter must: a. Bear the clause, “drawn under the Letter of Credit No. _____________, dated ___________, 2_____, of (Name of Bank); b. Be signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Corcoran. c. Be presented for payment at ___________________, on or before the expiration date of the letter of credit. d. List the reason for the draw and the cost to be drawn against the letter of credit. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MUST BE INCLUDED ON ALL LETTERS OF CREDIT SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF CORCORAN: This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date the financial institution delivers written notice to the City of Corcoran City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this letter of credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: City of Corcoran, Attn: City Administrator, Corcoran City Hall, 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation of Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this letter of credit shall be duly honored upon presentation if presented for payment together with the documents required herein to _______________, phone ___________, if presented before 4:00 p.m. on or before the expiration date. Presentations may be made in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested or by federal express or any other nationally recognized courier company. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 590 ("ISP98").” We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: _______________________________ Signature _______________________________ Its _______________________________ Printed Name of Signator Copy: City of Corcoran City Planner City of Corcoran City Engineer City of Corcoran City Administrator FEE OWNER CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________, fee owners of all or part of the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property owned by them. Fee Owners further consent to the recording of the Agreement against the Subject Property. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20___. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 20___, by ______________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 MORTGAGEE CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________, which holds a mortgage on the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, agrees that the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 20_____, by __________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 CONTRACT PURCHASER CONSENT TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT _______________________________________________________________, which/who has a contract purchaser's interest in all or part of the Subject Property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Agreement, hereby affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the Subject Property in which there is a contract purchaser's interest. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 20_____. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ________________, 20____, by ____________________________________________________________________________. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/17/2022 Comments: 1 inch = 200 feet PARCEL ID: 3211923440001 OWNER NAME: Garages Too Llc PARCEL ADDRESS: 22400 State Hwy No 55, Corcoran MN 55340 PARCEL AREA: 5.04 acres, 219,587 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $625,000 SALE DATA: 01/2021 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2021, PAYABLE 2022 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $386,000 TAX TOTAL: $5,401.94 ASSESSED 2022, PAYABLE 2023 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $521,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Garages Too Corcoran Site Improvement Project Date: May 4, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Garages Too Engineering Review Response Letter, Prepared by Civil Engineering Site Design, Dated 10/05/2021 2. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission Letter, Prepared by Garages Too LLC, Dated 04/11/2022 3. Garages Too Drainage Analysis, Prepared by Civil Engineering Site Design, Dated 04/08/2022 4. Garages Too Corcoran Site Plans, Prepared by Civil Engineering Site Design, Dated 04/08/2022 Comments: General: 1. Consistent with the review process, a comment response letter shall be provided in response to the following comments provided in this Memorandum in which the owner/applicant or representative provides a written response to how each item was addressed. Transportation 1. The proposed grading for the private drive was removed from this submittal. The actual grading plan, including contours and spot elevations, shall be shown to ensure that the drive can be constructed within the existing easements including any temporary easements necessary for grading or construction. As noted previously slope shall be 4:1 of flatter from this drive. 2. Provide additional details on cleared turn around area. If intended for emergency service turnaround it must meet city standards. Provide contours, spot elevations and dimensions. It looks like it is placed into a steep hillside so grading must be shown. 3. Turn around area and gate swing is shown within a proposed easement area. Provide copies of the easements to the City. Grading /Stormwater 1. Update the NWL and 100-yr elevation note on plans to match the model. Current model shows discrepancies between the plans and model. 2. Raise pond berm/embankment on east side of pond to prevent possible overflow to the east. EOF needs to provide a foot of freeboard from the 100-yr HWL, and the top of berm is required to be an additional foot above the EOF. May 4, 2022 Garages Too Corcoran Site Improvement Project Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 2 3. High velocities are shown exiting MH-10 down to the ROW line. A rip rap reinforced channel with stilling basin shall be designed to reduce velocities at Horseshoe Bend ROW. 4. This comment is also related to Transportation Comment #1. The creation of the access road and widening of the pavement is causing the peak discharge rates during all storm events to be higher in the proposed conditions than in the existing conditions. This will not be allowed as maintaining stormwater rates must be managed at all discharge points from the site. Therefore, stormwater rates to the south near the Highway 55 and Private Driveway Entrance need to be reduced. Provide stormwater management such as rock check dams or similar or divert a small catchment back to the onsite pond to reduce flows below existing conditions peak rates. The plans shall clearly show the proposed BMP and it shall encompassed by an easement or be contained within the property. End of Memo INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCPROJECT LOCATIONSITEMINNESOTAGARAGES TOO CORCORANSITE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTCORCORAN, MNCITY OF CORCORAN, MNHENNEPIN COUNTYSITESITESITE PROJECT LOCATIONSURVEY DATAEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONSLEGEND: SITE PLAN NOTES SITE DATA: GENERAL NOTES SETBACKS: KEY NOTES: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCMINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTSPROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS LEGEND:INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCSURVEY DATA LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCSURVEY DATA INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCSURVEY DATALEGEND: SURVEY DATAPROJECT LOCATIONEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONEROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION SCHEDULEEROSION CONTROL NOTESEROSION CONTROL MAINTENANCE SCHEDULEVEGETATION GROUND COVER SCHEDULESWPP NARRATIVEPOLLUTION PREVENTION NOTESRESPONSIBLE PARTYDESIGN CALCULATIONSSWPPP Designer: Owner: Garages Too, LLCContractor: Manager: EROSION CONTROL QUANTITIES:TOTAL SITE DATA: LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCFILTRATION BASIN NOTESMATCH LINE "A"MATCH LINE "B" LEGEND: INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCSURVEY DATAPROJECT LOCATIONEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONMATCH LINE "A"MATCH LINE "B" LEGEND: DEMOLITION NOTES INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCSURVEY DATAEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONMATCH LINE LEGEND: DEMOLITION NOTES INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLCSURVEY DATAEXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONMATCH LINE INDEX OF CIVIL SITE DRAWINGS: CIVIL ENGINEERINGSITE DESIGN305 Lakeview Ave.Tonka Bay, MN 55331Craig Scherber612-810-8400GARAGESTOO, LLC PRELIM INARY (FOR REV IEW ON LY )GARAGES TOO CORCORANCity Council, City of Corcoran, MinnesotaThis plat of GARAGES TOO CORCORAN was approoved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this________dayof _______________________, 20_____, and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statures, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.City Council, City of Corcoran, Minnesotaby_________________________________, Mayorby_________________________________, ClerkRESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, MinnesotaI hereby certify that taxes payable in 20___ and prior years have been paid for land described on the plat, dated this_____ day of_____________________, 20____.Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor by___________________________________DeputySURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, MinnesotaPursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this ______day of ___________________________, 20____.Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor by___________________________________COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, MinnesotaI hereby certify that the within plat of GORDON'S COUNTRY ESTATES SECOND ADDITION was recorded in this office this____day of _______________________, 20____ at________ o'clock ___.M.Amber Bougie, County Recorder by___________________________________DeputyKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That GARAGES TOO, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owners and proprietors of the following describedproperty situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to-wit:THAT PART OF THE NORTH 340 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1065 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP119 NORTH, RANGE 23, WEST OF THE 5TH/ PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING WEST OF THE EAST 685 FEET THEREOF, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.ANDLOT 4, BLOCK 2, SCHNELL'S HIGHLAND ACRES 2ND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as GARAGES TOO CORCORAN and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use the drainage and utility easements as createdby this plat.In witness whereof said GARAGES TOO, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, have hereunto set their hands this _____day of_____________________, 20____.__________ ________________________Craig Scherber, PresidentSTATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF _________________This instrument was acknowledged before me on ______________________________ by Craig Sherber, President of Garages Too, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, onbehalf of the company.__________________________________Notary Public Signature__________________________________Notary Printed Name_______________County, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires___________________I Kaleb J. Kadelbach do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that thisplat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been,or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wetlands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shownand labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.Dated this__________ day of _______________________, 20____._____________________________________________Kaleb J. Kadelbach, Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 57070STATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF _________________This instrument was acknowledged before me on ______________________________ by Kaleb Kadelbach.__________________________________Notary Public Signature__________________________________Notary Printed Name_______________County, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires___________________ PRELIM INARY (FOR REV IEW ON LY )GARAGES TOO CORCORAN 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 8f Rev. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Nicholas Ouellette through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 17, 2022 for the May 26, 2022 City Council Meeting RE: Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Application for “Walcott Glen” at the Northwest Corner of Hackamore Road and County Road 11 (PIDs 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23- 44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 and 36-119-23-44-0030) (city file no. 22- 015) REVIEW DEADLINE: June 5, 2022 1. Description of Request The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning, preliminary plat and planned unit development (PUD) plan for “Walcott Glen” on 35.07 acres at the northwest corner of Hackamore Road and County Road 101. The residential development includes 85 townhomes and 44 single family units. Development plans show the construction of the project in a single phase. Key plan application materials are attached as part of this packet; however, due to size limitations not every item is included. The complete application is available at city hall. 2. Background On November 22, 2021, Council reviewed a concept plan for the project and provided feedback to the applicant. 3. Parks and Trails Commission Review The Parks and Trails Commission reviewed this item at their April 21, 2022 meeting. The Commission voted to recommend accepting cash-in-lieu of land for park dedication. 4. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review this item on May 5, 2022; Commissioner Shoulak was not present at the Planning Commission meeting. In addition to the applicant, members of the public were present to speak on this item. Members of the public expressed concern for the development and it’s impact on density, stormwater, traffic and screening. The Planning Commission voted 3-1 (Jacobs nay) to recommend denial of the request for rezoning, preliminary plat and PUD plan approval based on the finding that PUD benefits provided by the Walcott Glen – (22-015) 2 May 26, 2022 applicant were not adequate in exchange for the requested flexibility and the planned development is in conflict with the underlying zoning district which does not permit the construction of townhomes. 5. Context A. Preliminary PUD Sketch Plan Zoning and Land Use The properties are zoned Single Family Residential (RSF-2) district and Planned Unit Development (PUD) district. The project includes 9 parcels. The five largest existing lots have single family homes and the remaining lots are vacant. The site is guided Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is located in the Southeast District, Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and the 2020-2025 phase of the 2040 Staging Plan. Municipal services are available to serve the development. Surrounding Properties Properties to the north and west are located in the Ravinia development, guided Low Density Residential and zoned PUD district. The properties developed with single family homes on lots ranging from 55- to 75-ft. wide. The site is bordered by the cities of Medina to the south, Maple Grove to the east and Plymouth to the southeast. The adjacent land uses in these cities are residential. Natural Characteristics of the Site The Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) map identifies wet prairie wetlands on the site. The wetland delineation provided by the applicant identifies four wetlands on the site. 6. Analysis Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and City Code requirements, as well as City policies. The City Engineer’s comments are incorporated into this staff report, the detailed comments are included in the attached engineering memo and the approval conditions require compliance with the memo. A. Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning application. The proposed zoning for a property must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the City must deny the rezoning application. The Zoning Ordinance and Map are the enforcement tools used to implement the goals and standards set in the Comprehensive Plan. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 3 May 26, 2022 The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a PUD. A PUD must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements in a PUD not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area. The City’s discretion in approving a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance and the conditions of the preliminary plat approval. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the plat. B. Consistency with Ordinance Standards Rezoning to PUD District The project includes nice parcels. Five of the parcels are large existing lots with residential homes. Four of the parcels were platted as part of the Ravinia 11th PUD but are vacant (Lot 1, Block 3, Outlot B, Outlot C and Outlot E). The Ravinia 11th parcels would need to be released from the Ravinia PUD and will be incorporated into the Walcott Glen PUD. The remaining previously unplatted properties are zoned Single Family Residential (RSF-2) district and are proposed to be rezoned to PUD district. The Zoning Ordinance has established a PUD zoning district with the purpose of promoting a creative and efficient use of land by providing design flexibility in the development of residential neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas that would not be possible under a conventional zoning district. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility for: • Garage width requirements for townhomes. • Garage size requirements for townhomes. • Lot size and width standards for single family homes. The PUD flexibility and the detailed development plan are discussed in the PUD Plan section of this report. In exchange for this flexibility, the applicant has stated that they will: • Preserve wetlands. • Preserve existing trees along County Road 101 and Hackamore Road to buffer the development. • Create a landscaped buffer between the development and existing homes in the Ravinia neighborhood to the west. • Add 12 trees on the south property line to buffer the development from Hackamore Road. • Provide an additional 55 ft. of building setback from County Road 101 for the homes on 62nd Avenue North. • Provide a small private park. • Project will result in a financial contribution towards the Hackamore Road Improvement Project. • Accommodation of the Hackamore Road on-road trail within the project rather than within the right-of-way. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 4 May 26, 2022 Staff notes the level of benefit provided by the applicant should be considered with respect to minimum level of preservation and design standards required by City Code. A benefit is provided by the applicant for the preservation of wetlands where an alternative site design could impact wetlands. The applicant is also preserving 45% of the existing trees where the City Code does not require tree preservation and would allow removal of all existing trees. The applicant has provided 169 ft. setbacks for lots along 62nd Place from County Road 101 where 100 ft. setbacks are required (a 60 ft. setback is proposed for Lot 38as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance). Larger rear and side yard setbacks have also been provided along the west property line. The applicant has provided an exhibit depicting the increased setbacks from the minimum requirements. Landscaping in addition to the minimum requirements in the ordinance is also provided along the west property line to buffer the proposed development from existing homes to the west. The applicant is providing a small private park, which is not required by the ordinance and no park dedication credit would be given for the park. Accommodating the Hackamore Road trail within the project is also not required; however, this will provide flexibility to the City in determining the final trail alignment. Staff does not believe the financial contribution to the Hackamore Road Improvement Project is a PUD benefit as the contribution would be required for any development on this site, but completion of the project would provide funds for the project. The City must review this request for compliance with the PUD standards as follows: 1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The planned unit development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive plan. The proposed pre- development density of approximately 3.97 units per acre is expected to be within the 3-5 units per acre required in the Low Density Residential land use classification when calculated with post-development numbers at final plat. The plan incorporates the on-road trail and street connections anticipated within the site. 2. The planned development is not in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning district. The planned development of 44 single family homes and 85 townhomes. The single family homes are consistent with the intent of the RSF-2 district, which allows single family homes. Townhomes are not permitted in the RSF-2 district; however, Section 1040.140 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the PUD district is to allow for mixing of land uses that could not otherwise be accomplished through standard zoning regulations. The applicant is requesting approval of PUD zoning for flexibility for modification of townhome building standards and single family lot standards for this development at a density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 5 May 26, 2022 3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer indicates they will preserve wetlands, preserve existing trees to buffer the development, establish buffers and screening between the existing development and the townhomes, provide a small private park and provide an additional 55 ft. setback from County Road 101 for the lots on 62nd Avenue North. The PUD allows the applicant to request flexibility from the performance standards in the ordinance in exchange for a high quality development than might otherwise be expected. The Council could find that the PUD flexibility requested by the developer results in deviations from the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that are not off-set by the PUD benefits proposed by the applicant and, therefore, are in conflict with the applicable provisions of the ordinance. 4. The planned development or unit thereof is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and/or operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other subsequent unit or phase. The planned development is feasible without dependence upon any other subsequent phase. The project will be completed in a single phase and integrate into the existing Ravinia neighborhood. 5. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. With the improvements required by the feasibility study, the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The developer is providing public trails and sidewalks consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The private park will serve neighborhood residents in addition to the existing public parks in the surrounding area. 6. The planned development will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The planned development is a residential neighborhood developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The development is estimated to be 3.97 units per acre where 3-5 units per acre are required for this property. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 6 May 26, 2022 7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. Staff finds the developer meets this standard. The development will meet the City’s density goals while providing land for land for a private park, trails and quality architecture. The Zoning Ordinance states that “the rezoning of the property defined in the development plan shall not become effective until such time as the City Council approves an ordinance reflecting said amendment, which shall take place at the time that the City Council approves the final development plan”. The Council should approve the rezoning to be effective at such time as the final PUD plan is approved. Preliminary PUD Plan The PUD offers enhanced flexibility to develop the site through the relaxation of most typical zoning district standards. The PUD allows for a greater variety of land uses, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this flexibility, the City expects a higher level of design, more sensitive development or more significant infrastructure improvements than might otherwise be required. The entire project will be built in a single phase and includes 44 single family homes and 85 townhomes. The plans show an approximate net density of 3.97 units per acre. This complies with the Low Density Residential land use category requirement of 3-5 units per acre. The City applies this density evaluation on a parcel-by-parcel basis (3-5 units per acre for low density). When the City updates its Comprehensive Plan, the Metropolitan Council requires the City to show that they will provide a minimum of three units per net acre on average across all residential districts in the City’s MUSA. The formula used by the Metropolitan Council shows that following the land use classifications in the adopted 2040 plan will result in slightly more than three units per acre. In order to monitor compliance with this goal, the Metropolitan Council plat monitoring program requires cities to ensure that each plat is in compliance with the density range for the adopted land use and provide an annual report. Regardless of housing type, development on this parcel must comply with the adopted density range. Lot Standards The development is being reviewed against the RSF-2 district standards for the single family units. While the applicant has not requested flexibility from RSF-2 lot standards, plans provided by applicant show flexibility is required from the lot size and lot width standards for the single family homes as follows (shown in red below): Walcott Glen – (22-015) 7 May 26, 2022 Proposed RSF-2 (Single family) Minimum lot area 6,926 sq. ft. 11,000 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 50 ft. 80 ft. Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 ft. 100 ft. Front, From all other streets 25 ft. home/20 ft. porch 20 ft. Side 7.5 ft (15 ft. between homes) 10 ft./5 ft. garage Rear 30 ft. 30 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 35 ft. 35 ft. *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s narrative does not request flexibility from the rear yard setback. Staff notes 25 ft. rear setbacks are shown for lots along Lupine Lane and Goldenrod Trail and 30 ft. rear setbacks are shown for lots along 62nd Avenue. Many of these lots can accommodate the 30 ft. rear yard setback and plans should be revised to show the correct setback distance. While all of the homes appear to meet the rear setback requirement, porches/patios/decks for Lots 33, 39, 40 and 41 encroach into the rear yard setback. Porches/patios/decks for these lots will not be permitted to encroach into the rear yard setback. Staff has included a condition that the applicant revise plans to show compliance with the required 30 ft. rear setback. Lot 38 is the only lot with frontage along County Road 101 (a major roadway). Plans show a 50 ft. front yard setback from County Road 101. Building setback flexibility may be provided through additional landscaping in the required front setback adjacent to arterial streets. Section 1060.070 in the Zoning Ordinance allows the applicant to reduce the required setback up to 40% if the applicant provides a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, two ornamental trees and ten understory shrubs for 100 ft. of length along the property line where flexibility is requested, or preserves the equivalent number of existing trees and shrubs. The tree preservation plan shows approximately 12 overstory trees being preserved in the required front setback. The proposed 50 ft. setback for Lot 38 does not comply; a 40% reduction in the 100 ft. setback requires a 60 ft. setback. The applicant shall revise plans to show the 60 ft. setback and required landscaping of 2 overstory deciduous trees, two overstory coniferous trees, two ornamental trees, and 20 understory shrubs for the 200 ft. of property line where flexibility is requested. Single family homes are concentrated on the perimeter of the site to provide a transition from the existing single family homes in the Ravinia development and the townhomes located in the center and southeast areas of the site. Ravinia homes adjacent to the north are situated on 55 and 65 ft. wide lots. The applicant has proposed placing the largest single family lots in the Walcott Glen development along the west property line to provide a transition from adjacent 75 ft. wide Ravinia lots. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 8 May 26, 2022 The townhomes are reviewed against the RMF-1 district standards because that is the zoning district that allows townhomes. The comparison follows: Proposed RMF-1 (Townhomes) Minimum lot area 8,717 sq. ft. 5,400 sq. ft. per unit Minimum lot width 24 ft. None Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 100 ft. 100 ft. Front, From all other streets 25 ft. 25 ft. Side** 10 ft. 10 ft. Rear 25 ft. 25 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 35 ft. 35 ft. *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2030 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. **Internal: 20 feet between attached or multi-family principal structures separated by common area. The intent of the per unit sq. ft. requirement is intended to be an average based on the townhome area (a sum of the unit footprints plus the common areas divided by the number of units). Staff provided an approximate calculation for the proposed minimum lot area for townhomes; however, the applicant is required to provide a minimum lot area calculation using this formula to confirm compliance. Rear setbacks are measured from base lot line, not the unit lot line, and townhome buildings comply with this standard. Design Standards The City has adopted design standards as part of the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines as part of the Southeast District Plan and Design Guidelines. Plans appear to be compliant with the guidelines outlined in the Southeast District Plan. Since products may change in the course of the build-out, additional home plans may be considered. Any changes or updates to the architectural elevations or plans provided to the City must be approved by City staff to ensure compliance with PUD approvals. Single family homes are also required to comply with the standards listed in Section 1040.040, Subd. 8. The applicant has provided 14 different architectural elevations of the single family homes and have additional elevations they wish to provide. The applicant is not requesting any flexibility from the single family design standards. Plans for single family homes appear to comply with the required standards. The applicant should provide updated plans that delineate the garage area to ensure compliance with the requirement that the garage shall not comprise more than 55% of the viewable ground floor street- facing building frontage. Equal architecture treatment is also required on all sides of a single family home that faces a public right-of-way or park, which includes Lots 24-31, 37 and 38. Staff has attached an exhibit to this report that illustrates lots subject to this requirement. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 9 May 26, 2022 Townhomes must comply with the architectural standards in Section 1040.060, Subd. 9. Townhome elevations have been provided and a color palette has also been provided. Plans for the townhomes appear to comply with the required standards, except where PUD flexibility is being requested. The amount of stone material provided on the townhome facades exceeds the minimum percentage required. The applicant is only requesting PUD flexibility from garage standards for the townhomes as noted below. Section 1040.060, Subd. 9(B.7) Garages: The Ordinance specifies that for townhome dwellings with basements, 440 sq. ft. garages are required and for dwellings without basements, 540 sq. ft. garages are required. Garages shall also be a minimum of 20 ft. wide. The townhomes in this project are proposed without basements. The applicant is requesting flexibility from the minimum garage standards to allow 419 sq. ft. garages with a minimum width of 19 ft. 3 in. This is similar to the Tavera townhome development where PUD flexibility was provided to allow 420 sq. ft. garages with a minimum width of 19 ft. The HOA is responsible for exterior maintenance which reduces the amount of storage space necessary for yard maintenance tools and devices in the townhome garages. Storage space is still at the back of the garage and the applicant has provided 50 sq. ft. of shelving for storage. Utilities The City Engineer’s memo provides detailed utility comments. Sewer and water are available through the Ravinia neighborhood. The Feasibility Study indicates that looping will be required for the watermain with the location to be determined during construction plan review. There are existing well and septic systems in existing single family lots. Well and septic system abandonment shall be completed as noted in the City Engineer’s memo. Public Streets and Access The public streets are 30 ft. wide with 50 ft. wide rights-of-way. This complies with City standards and Southeast District guidelines. Access to the development will be provided from Hackamore Road via Goldenrod Trail. The project also provides new access to the Ravinia neighborhood from Goldenrod Trail and Larkspur Lane. Lots on the 63rd Avenue North cul-de-sac will be accessed through the existing Ravinia 11th Addition. The Feasibility Study indicates that Hackamore Road is planned to be improved to a two lane roadway with both right and left turns into the main access. If this reconstruction is undertaken as part of a larger project for Hackamore Road, the applicant shall share in those costs for the portion in front of the plat boundary. The City of Corcoran continues to coordinate with the City of Medina and is pursuing additional sources of funding for this project. Plans show a west-bound right turn lane from Hackamore Road into the development; however, the City Engineer’s memo requires that plans shall be revised to Walcott Glen – (22-015) 10 May 26, 2022 show the 75% Hackamore improvement plan set. Proposed improvements to Hackamore Road shall be coordinated at final plat to ensure they can be constructed with the development. No access from County Road 101 is proposed. Private Drives Townhomes that do not front onto Larkspur Lane or Goldenrod Trail have access from private drives. A maintenance and easement agreement is required for the private drives. Private drives must comply with the standards in Section 945.020 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Plans comply with the requirements that driveways with access from private drives be a minimum of 22 ft. in length. The Ordinance requires a 75 ft. concrete apron at the access to private drives from public streets which is not shown on plans. The concrete apron standard was intended for the rural area and different standards for the urban area were never adopted. The townhomes in Tavera have a 20 ft. concrete apron and a 3 ft. concrete valley gutter was discussed as an option for Tavera but not approved. While no flexibility has been requested by the applicant, staff has no objection if the Council wishes to approve a 3 ft. concrete valley gutter at the entrance to private drives. A decorative sign stating “private drive” shall be located near each entrance to a private drive. Each sign shall also provide the range of addresses served by the private drive. The Public Safety Memo notes the private drive hammerhead must meet city specifications and post no parking fire lane signs. Parking Section 1060.060 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for each use. Townhomes are required to provide two spaces per unit, plus one space for each five units. The applicant is showing 11 parking stalls off the private drives in Outlot C and 18 parking stalls on Larkspur Lane. The City generally requires on-street parking on public streets to be on the same side of the street as the sidewalk. However, the parking on Larkspur Lane is on the east side of the street not the sidewalk side. Staff would support this to meet the guest parking requirement if the parking is in a bump out to keep the travel lane clear. We have included this as a condition of approval in the draft resolution. Parking areas with four or more stalls must be screened from residential properties and streets with landscaping at least 3 ft. high to screen vehicle headlights. One guest parking area has five stalls and the applicant shall provide the required screening from the adjacent townhome and public street. Staff has included a condition that plans show the required screening for the five-stall parking area along the private drive. Staff encourage the applicant to provide this landscaping for the other off street parking areas as well. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 11 May 26, 2022 Grading and Stormwater The City Engineer’s memo provides detailed comments on stormwater. Two stormwater ponds and two filtration ponds are proposed with this project. The City Engineer’s memo requires plans be revised to show all contributing areas for the drainage network to better understand the site will connect with the overall drainage network for the area. The applicant also proposed expanding an existing stormwater filtration basin in Ravinia to the northeast of the site. This filtration basin is currently managed by the Ravinia HOA. The applicant shall be required to provide documentation to the City indicating how maintenance of the expanded portion of the filtration basin will be handled by the two different HOAs. Retaining walls are proposed with this development. Retaining walls higher than four feet shall be designed by a certified engineer and plans for any retaining walls higher than four feet shall be submitted to the building permit department for permitting prior to construction. Plans show retaining walls situated within the wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback. Section 1050.010 requires that the wetland structure setback shall apply to all structures, except that structures setback shall be reduced to 5 ft. for roadways, trails, and parking lots and their related walls and fences. The proposed retaining walls do not qualify for a setback reduction. Plans must be revised to locate retaining walls outside the wetland buffer building setback. The proposed location of retaining walls in Lots 7, 8, 9 and 38 create unusable portions of the yard that are difficult to access for lawnmowing and maintenance. Those areas between the retaining wall and the buffer will be difficult to maintain. Staff recommends that area be planted with native plants to reduce the level of maintenance required or consider relocating the retaining walls. An existing overland emergency overflow (EOF) is present between wetland #4 and Wetland #H3 and grading for Larkspur Lane will impact the EOF. The City Engineer has noted the EOF may need to be located underground or the road grading shall be lowered to maintain the EOF. Staff has included this as a condition. Easements An access easement exists along the south side of the Ravinia 11th Addition and along the north property line of the proposed side adjacent to Ravinia 11th Addition. This is a private easement between landowners. A release from this easement is required prior to final plat application and will be recorded with the final plat. New standard drainage and utility easements will be provided with the plat around the perimeter of the lots, over stormwater management ponds and over the wetlands (wetland and wetland buffer areas). Drainage and utility easements will be required over the common space parcels for the townhomes, otherwise additional drainage and utility easements for the storm sewer and utilities will be necessary. Gas, electric and other private and public utilities are located adjacent and/or on the property. Preservation of existing easements and coordination with all public and private utilities must be conducted prior to commencing any grading or construction. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 12 May 26, 2022 Homeowners Association The existing Ravinia lots are subject to the Ravinia Homeowners Association. These lots must be transferred to the homeowners association established for this project. The transfer to the new homeowners association will be addressed as part of the final plat. Landscaping and Tree Preservation A minimum of one overstory tree is required for each dwelling unit. The Landscape Plan indicates the applicant is providing 162 overstory trees for 128 residential units and landscape buffers. Landscape Plans show one tree in front of each single family house. Space in front of townhomes is limited and trees have been provided in front of townhomes where feasible. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan showing utility connections to ensure no conflicts between trees and utilities. As a PUD benefit, the applicant has provided 33 conifer trees along the west property line of the site to buffer views of the townhomes from the existing Ravinia neighborhood. The layout of the proposed development is intended to utilize existing and proposed tree locations to screen the neighborhood from County Road 101 and Hackamore Road. The applicant has also provided a tree preservation plan. A retaining wall proposed south of the 63rd Avenue North cul-de-sac will impact three trees that were marked as preserved. The City Engineer’s memo provides detailed comments on trees marked as preserved but do not appear practical to preserve based on the grading plan. Staff has included a condition that the applicant submit a revised tree preservation plan. Staff has attached a marked up tree preservation plan. As noted in the parking section above, if the applicant provides parking lots with four or more stalls, 3 ft. high landscaping will be required to screen vehicle headlights from residential and public streets. Wetlands The wetland delineation report provided by the applicant shows four wetlands on the site. Section 1050.010 establishes standards for the Wetland Overlay District. This includes the establishment of wetland buffer strips with an average width of 25 ft. plus a 15 ft. structure setback from the buffer. Wetland buffer signs are required to be installed at each lot/outlot line where it crosses a wetland buffer, and where needed to indicate the contour of a buffer, with a maximum spacing of 200 ft. along the buffer edge. Staff notes a few sections of wetland buffer require additional buffer monument signs and will work with the applicant to revise plans to accurately place buffer monuments. Building setback lines must also be revised to comply with the 15 ft. structure setback around Wetland #4. Staff also notes a retaining wall adjacent to Wetland #4 and #H3 conflicts with the location of the wetland buffer edge. Staff has included a condition the location of the wetland buffer or retaining wall be revised. Plans show patios/decks/porches encroaching into the required structure setback area on Lot 9. Patios and decks may encroach up to a maximum of 6 ft. into the required structure setback area and porches Walcott Glen – (22-015) 13 May 26, 2022 may not encroach into the required structure setback area. Because single family home buyers will select their individual home for each lot, staff will review setbacks for compliance with these standards as part of the building permit application. Signage No development signage is proposed at this time. As noted in the private drive section above, “private drive” signs are required at the entrance to each private drive. No parking signs shall be required on one side of the public streets and required within all cul-de-sacs. The City Engineer’s memo includes requirements for roadway and no parking signs. Lighting The applicant has not provided a lighting plan or street light details. Staff has included a condition the applicant provide proposed street lighting locations on revised plans. The final location of streetlights will be coordinated with the City and field located during construction. Sidewalks, Trails and Parks The Parks and Trails map in the Comprehensive Plan shows on-road trails along County Road 101 and Hackamore Road. Normally, on road trails are located in the public right-of-way and are very lineal. The applicant is providing space on their property outside of the right-of-way for the Hackamore Road trail as a PUD benefit. Permanent trail easements will be required for the portion of trail within the site boundary and no park dedication credit will be granted for this trail. The final alignment of the Hackamore Road trail will be determined during the design process for road improvements. The final trail alignment will be determined by the City and may result in additional tree loss along the south property line. The applicant shall provide revised plans that delineate the future County Road 101 trail; however, the alignment of this trail will likely be impacted by the presence of wetlands. The applicant shall provide trail connections to the future County Road 101 trail at the northeast and southeast portions of the site. A trail easement connection shall be provided from either the private drive hammerhead or the 62nd Avenue North cul-de-sac; a trail connection from the hammerhead could cross the south of lots 97 and 98 between the pond and wetland on Outlot C. No park dedication credit will be granted for the trail easement connection. A connection to the County Road 101 trail shall also be provided from the 63rd Avenue North cul-de-sac. Staff notes the 63rd Avenue North cul-de-sac abuts the County road 101 right-of-way and that a trail easement may be required to provide a connection with County Road 101. Sidewalks are shown along public streets and they connect to existing sidewalks within the Ravinia development to the west and north. The sidewalk along Goldenrod Trail connects with the on-road trail along Hackamore Road. No sidewalks are provided on the private drives. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 14 May 26, 2022 The applicant has proposed a 0.46 acre park in Outlot E. The Parks and Trails Commission recommended not to accept the park for park land dedication. The applicant indicates that they will retain this area as a private amenity for neighborhood residents as a benefit of the PUD. The Parks and Trails Commission recommended accepting cash-in-lieu of land for required park dedication. The full cash-in-lieu of land required for this project is as follows: 44 single family units = $203,632 (44 x $4,628) 85 multi-family units = $266,985 (85 x $3,141) TOTAL = $470,617 Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat requests approval of 129 lots and five outlots. The applicant has requested flexibility from minimum lot size, width and setback requirements for single family lots and from lot size and setback requirements for townhomes. The approval conditions noted in this staff report may result in changes to the lot layout and may also affect the unit count. The applicant has indicated this project will be completed in a single phase. Summary Staff finds that the proposed plan is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The plan for single family homes provides many of the essential components of the Comprehensive Plan, including: • Ensuring housing development is compatible with existing and adjacent land uses and has access to key community features, natural features and views of open spaces. • Providing a variety of housing types, styles, densities and choices to meet the housing needs of residents. • The development complies with the density goals for this site. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility for: • Garage width requirements for townhomes. • Garage size requirements for townhomes. • Lot size and width standards for single family homes. In exchange for this flexibility, the applicant has stated that they will: • Preserve wetlands. • Preserve existing trees along County Road 101 and Hackamore Road to buffer the development. • Create a landscaped buffer between the development and existing homes in the Ravinia neighborhood to the west. • Add 12 trees on the south property line to buffer the development from Hackamore Road. Walcott Glen – (22-015) 15 May 26, 2022 • Provide an additional 55 ft. of building setback from County Road 101 for the homes on 62nd Avenue North. • Provide a small private park. • Project will result in a financial contribution towards the Hackamore Road Improvement Project. • Accommodation of the Hackamore Road on-road trail within the project rather than within the right-of-way. Staff has reviewed the plan for consistency with the applicant standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Staff noted in the staff report the outstanding issues that must be addressed and we have included conditions in the attached draft resolutions to address these issues. The City Council may modify these conditions as needed to accomplish the PUD goals. However, the City has discretion when reviewing a PUD and the City Council may find that PUD standards have not been met and may recommend denial of the request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 7. Recommendation The City Council should choose one of the following two options: a. Move to adopt Resolution 2022-63 denying the request, as recommended by the Planning Commission. b. Move to recommend approval of the following: i. Ordinance 2022-461 Rezoning to PUD ii. Resolution 2022-63 Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning iii. Resolution 2022-64 Approving Preliminary PUD Plan iv. Resolution 2022-65 Approving Preliminary Plat v. Summary Ordinance 2022-462 Walcott Glen – (22-015) 16 May 26, 2022 Attachments 1. Resolution 2022-63 Denying the Request 2. Ordinance 2022-461 Rezoning to PUD 3. Resolution 2022-63 Approving Findings of Fact for Rezoning 4. Resolution 2022-64 Approving Preliminary PUD Plan 5. Resolution 2022-65 Approving Preliminary Plat 6. Ordinance 2022-462 7. Site Location Map 8. City Engineer’s Memo dated April 24, 2022 9. Feasibility Study dated April 6, 2022 10. Public Safety Memo dated April 12, 2022 11. County Comments dated May 12, 2022 12. Applicant’s Narrative dated April 26, 2022 13. Preliminary PUD Site Plan dated April 26, 2022 14. Preliminary PUD Plans dated March 11, 2022 15. Preliminary Plat dated March 11, 2022 16. Parking Exhibit dated April 26, 2022 17. Setback Exhibit dated May 18, 2022 18. Site Plan Rendering dated April 27, 2022 19. Landscape Plan dated March 11, 2022 20. Architectural Elevations dated April 26, 2022 21. Architectural Upgrades Exhibit dated April 28, 2022 22. Tree Preservation Plan Review dated March 22, 2022 23. Pulte Exhibit/PowerPoint dated May 18, 2022 24. Public Comments City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: DENYING A REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23- 44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36- 119-23-44-0033 AND 36-119-23-44-0030) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval rezoning, preliminary plat and planned unit development plan for the construction of 85 townhomes and 44 single family units on the properties legally described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the rezoning, preliminary plat and planned unit development plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends denial; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the request for rezoning and planned unit development plan, based on the finding that: 1. The planned development is in conflict with the intent of the underlying Singly Family Residential (RSF-2) zoning district which does not permit the construction of townhomes. 2. The planned development will have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. 3. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan do not substantially create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through strict application of the primary zoning regulations. 4. The public benefit is not greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. 5. Planned unit development benefits proposed by the applicant do not exceed the City’s standards to offset the effect of variations to the land use regulations. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63 Page 2 of 4 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – City Administrator City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANC That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANC The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANC The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Lot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63 Page 4 of 4 Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 9: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot B, RAVINIA 11th ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-461 Page 1 of 3 Motion By: Seconded By: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY CODE TO CLASSIFY CERTAIN LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23- 44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36- 119-23-44-0033 AND 36-119-23-44-0030) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of the City Code. Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification of the City of Corcoran Zoning Map to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the affected parcels, legally described as follows: See Attachment A Section 2. This amendment shall take effect upon adoption of the resolution approving the final PUD development plan for this project. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-461 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANC That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANC The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANC The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Lot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-461 Page 3 of 3 Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 9: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot B, RAVINIA 11th ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR REZONING FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36- 119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44- 0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 AND 36-119-23-44-0030) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval to rezone 34.59 acres legally described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Hearing, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance rezoning the affected parcels to Planned Unit Development (PUD); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does support the request for the reclassification of the property, based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The planned development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed pre-development density of 3.97 units per acre is expected to be within the 3-5 units per acre required in the Low Density Residential land use classification when calculated with post-development numbers at final plat. The plan incorporates the on-road trail and street connections anticipated within the site. 2. The planned development of 44 single family is consistent with the intent of the RSF-2 zoning district, which allows single family homes. The applicant is requesting approval of PUD zoning to allow the development of 85 townhomes. The purpose of the PUD district is to allow for mixing of land uses that could not otherwise be accomplished through standard zoning regulations. The applicant is also requesting approval of PUD zoning for design flexibility for modification of townhome architecture and building standards for this development. 3. The planned development is not in conflict with other applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, except that PUD flexibility is requested as noted in the staff report. In exchange for this flexibility, the developer indicates they will preserve wetlands, preserve existing trees to buffer the development, establish buffers and screening between the existing development and the townhomes, provide a small private park and provide an additional 55 ft. setback from County Road 101 for the lots on 62nd Avenue N. 4. The planned development is feasibly without dependence upon any other subsequent phase. The project will be completed in a single phase and integrate into the existing Ravinia neighborhood. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63 Page 2 of 4 5. With the improvements required by the feasibility study, the development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The developer is providing public trails and sidewalks consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The private park will serve neighborhood residents in addition to the existing public parks in the surrounding area. 6. The planned development is a residential neighborhood developed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, will not have an undue and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighborhood property. The development is estimated to be 3.97 units per acre where 3-5 units per acre are required for this property. 7. The quality of the building and site design proposed by the PUD plan shall substantially enhance the aesthetics of the site, shall demonstrate higher standards, more efficient and effective uses of streets, utilities and public facilities, it shall maintain and enhance any natural resources within the development, and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved through the strict application of the primary zoning regulations. Staff finds the developer meets this standard. The development will meet the City’s density goals while providing land for land for a private park, trails and quality architecture. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANC That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANC The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANC The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Lot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-63 Page 4 of 4 Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 9: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot B, RAVINIA 11th ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 1 of 9 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR “WALCOTT GLEN” LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44- 0010, 36-119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 AND 36-119-23-44-0030) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval of “Walcott Glen” a residential subdivision on property legal described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for preliminary PUD plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary PUD plan is approved to create 129 lots and five outlots for “Walcott Glen”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on February 15, 2022, February 24, 2022, March 11, 2022, March 30, 2022, April 6, 2022, April 26, 2022 and April 27, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the requested rezoning and preliminary plat (Ordinance 2022-63 and Resolution 2022-65). 3. The preliminary PUD plan is approved based on the finding that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 4. The townhomes shall comply with the RMF-1 townhome standards in Section 1040.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Public Safety Memo dated April 12, 2022. 6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo, dated April 24, 2022. 7. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Feasibility Study dated April 6, 2022. 8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the comments provided by Hennepin County on May 12, 2022. The applicant is also required to secure all permits and approvals from the County. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 2 of 9 9. PUD flexibility is granted for the following: a. Townhome garage width and size requirements. Townhome Garages shall be a minimum 19’-3” wide and 419 sq. ft. in area. b. Lot width and area standards for the single family homes. The following standards shall apply to single family homes: Single Family Units Minimum lot area 6,926 sq. ft. Minimum lot width 50 ft. Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks: Front, From Major Roadways* 80 ft. Front, From all other streets 25 ft. home/20 ft. porch Side 7.5 ft (15 ft. between homes) Rear 30 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 35 ft. *Major Roadways are Principal Arterial, A Minor Reliever, A Minor Expander and A Minor Connector Roadways as shown on the 2040 Roadway Functional Classification map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 10. The preliminary plat shall be revised to list all nine parcels included in the development. 11. Park dedication shall be satisfied by acceptance of cash-in-lieu of land for the 44 single family homes and 85 townhomes. a. Park dedication shall be subject to park dedication fees in place when the final plat is released for recording. b. A 20 ft. wide trail easement must be deeded to the City for the Hackamore Road trail. Final alignment will be determined by the City Engineer. No park dedication will be granted. c. The future County Road 101 trail shall be shown on the plans. 12. Minimum lot area calculations for the townhomes shall be provided with the application for final plat (sum of the unit footprints plus the common areas divided by the number of townhome units). 13. Plans shall be revised to show compliance with the 30 ft. rear yard setback for single family lots. 14. Plans shall be revised to show building setback flexibility for Lot 38 as 60 ft. from County Road 101. Building setback flexibility is permitted to reduce the required setback up to 40% of the required 100 ft. setback if the applicant provides: a. One overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, two ornamental trees and ten understory shrubs for 100 ft. along the property line where flexibility is requested, or preserve the equivalent number of existing trees and shrubs. b. Plans shall show the required landscaping for the reduced setback. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 3 of 9 15. Building setback flexibility is provided for Lot 38 for a 60 ft. front setback from major roadways. In exchange, the applicant shall provide a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree, one overstory coniferous tree, two ornamental trees and ten understory shrubs for 100 ft. of length along the property line where flexibility is requested, or preserve the equivalent number of existing trees and shrubs. 16. All driveways must have a minimum 22 ft. wide parking area between the garage and right-of-way that does not overlap into sidewalks, drives or streets. 17. Mechanical equipment (including air conditioning units) must be located in the side or rear yard. 18. Driveways may not encroach in the drainage and utility easements on the side yards. 19. The developer shall provide centralized mailbox locations. A mailbox plan shall be provided for City review and approval. Mailbox locations shall be approved by the US Postal Service and proof of the approved locations shall be provided to the City prior to release of final plat. 20. The applicant shall provide details of the driveway, house pads, and setbacks as part of the final PUD plan applicant that demonstrate compliance with the approved PUD standards. Architecture and Design Standards 21. Single family homes shall comply with all design requirements for the RSF-2 district described in Section 1040.040. a. Provide updated architectural plans delineating the garage area to ensure compliance with the requirement that the garage shall not comprise more than 55% of the viewable ground floor street-facing building frontage. 22. Townhomes shall comply with all design requirements for the RMF-1 district described in Section 1040.060, Subd. 9, except that PUD flexibility is provided for garage size and width. The plans submitted do comply with all architectural standards for building materials. 23. Any changes or updates to the architectural elevations or plans provided to the City must be approved by City staff to ensure compliance with PUD approvals. 24. The applicant shall provide copies of the final HOA documents/covenants for City review as part of the final plat application. 25. Porches, patios and/or decks must comply with the 30 ft. rear yard setback. Landscaping and Lighting 26. Lawn sprinklers/irrigation systems (if provided) shall all have rain sensors to limit unnecessary watering. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 4 of 9 27. Plans shall be revised to show proposed location of streetlights and street light details shall also be provided. 28. The Tree Preservation Plan shall be revised to show additional trees for removal adjacent to the retaining wall north of Wetland #H3. 29. Landscaping 3 ft. high shall be provided for parking areas with four or more stalls to screen vehicle headlights from adjacent residential and public streets. 30. The applicant shall provide plans showing the proposed location of required trees and utility connections to ensure no conflicts between the two. 31. Trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the single family homes. 32. Any request to for the City to inspect the required landscaping in order to reduce financial guarantees must be accompanied by recertification/verification of field inspection by the project Landscape Architect. A letter signed by the project Landscape Architect verifying plantings (including wetland and pond buffers) have been correctly installed in compliance with the plans and specifications will suffice. Wetlands 33. A wetland buffer planting plan and maintenance plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City. 34. Well and septic system abandonment shall be completed as noted in the City Engineer’s memo. 35. The Site Plan must be revised to relocated retaining walls outside of the wetland buffer a. A retaining wall is situated within the buffer for Wetland #H3 and must be relocated. b. A retaining wall is situated within the buffer for Wetland #4 and must be relocated. 36. Section 1050.010 requires a 15 ft. structure setback, but allows patios and decks to encroach a maximum of 6 ft. into the required structure setback. Porches may not encroach into the required structure setback area. Staff will review setbacks for compliance with these standards as part of the building permit application. 37. All permanent wetland buffer monument signs must be erected along the wetland buffer line as required by Section 1050.010, Subd. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. a. The applicant shall work with City staff to finalize the location of wetland buffer monuments. b. Wetland signs shall be purchased from the City. c. The final locations must be inspected and approved by City staff. d. Monument signs shall be installed prior to approval of the building permit. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 5 of 9 Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management 38. Drainage and utility easements must be provided over all wetlands, wetland buffers and ponds. 39. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided along the perimeter of all lots. 40. The applicant must enter into a stormwater maintenance agreement prior to release of final plat. 41. The applicant shall provide documentation to the City indicating how maintenance of the expanded portion of the filtration basin in the northeast corner of the site will be handled by the two different HOAs. 42. The applicant shall maintain the existing EOF between Wetland #H3 and Wetland #4. 43. The applicant shall maintain the expanded portion of the filtration basin located on the east side of Ravinia 11th Addition. 44. Plans must be revised to locate retaining walls outside the wetland buffers and wetland buffer setback. Parks, Sidewalks and Trails 45. The HOA is responsible for ensuring sidewalks in the townhome development area are shoveled. 46. The final alignment of the Hackamore Road on-road trail will be determined during the design process for road improvements. a. The applicant shall be required to provide permanent trail easements for any portion of the trail located within the site boundary. 47. Plans shall be revised to show the County Road 101 on-road trail. 48. Future trail connections shall be provided to the County Road 101 trail from: a. 62nd Avenue North or the private drive hammerhead. A trail easement shall be provided for this future trail connection. b. 63rd Avenue North. A trail easement may be required for this future trail connection. 49. The HOA is responsible for the maintenance of the open space in the development, including any private park space. Final details of the private park area shall be provided with the final PUD application. Streets, Parking and Utilities 50. All utility facilities shall be located underground. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 6 of 9 51. Plans shall be revised to show the 75% Hackamore improvement plan set. 52. The development shall comply with the City’s requirements regarding fire access, fire protection and fire flow calculations, the location of fire hydrants, fire department connections and fire lane signage. 53. Parking shall be permitted on one side of the local streets and shall be signed in accordance with City standards. 54. The hammerhead on the private drive must meet city specifications and post no parking fire lane signs. 55. Private drives shall be allowed for the townhome development shown on plans. a. Plans must be revised to show the required 75 ft. concrete apron at the entrance to private drives from public streets. b. Individual unit driveways that gain access from any such private drive shall be a minimum of 22 ft. in length. c. A decorative sign stating “Private Drive” shall be located near each entrance to a private drive. Such sign shall also provide the range of addresses served by the private drive. d. No parking shall be allowed on the private drive but guest parking will be required adjacent to the private drive. e. The HOA documents shall provide a mechanism for the maintenance of the private drive in perpetuity. f. The private drive shall not be placed in an outlot. g. The private drive shall have a width no greater than 24 ft. h. Snow storage locations must be shown on plans. 56. One guest parking stall must be provided for each five townhome units. A minimum of 17 off-street parking stalls are required for the 85 townhomes: a. Eleven (11) off-street parking stalls are provided adjacent to the private drives. i. The HOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of these parking stalls. b. Eighteen (18) on-street parking stalls are permitted along Larkspur Lane to fulfill the remaining six off-street parking stalls required by Code. i. On-street parking along Larkspur Lane shall be located in a bump out along the east edge of the right-of-way. No on-street parking along Larkspur Lane shall be located within the drive lane. ii. Final design of the on-street parking bump out shall be coordinated with City staff prior to final PUD. Miscellaneous 57. The applicant must provide documentation that Ravinia lots that are being incorporated into this project (Lot 1, Block 3, Outlot B, Outlot C and Outlot E) have been released from the Ravinia HOA and will be incorporated into the Walcott Glen HOA. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 7 of 9 58. A release from the existing access easement along on both sides of the property line between the Ravinia 11th Addition and the site shall be required and recorded with the final plat. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANC That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANC The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANC The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Lot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-64 Page 9 of 9 Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 9: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot B, RAVINIA 11th ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-65 Page 1 of 4 Motion By: Seconded By: APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR “WALCOTT GLEN” LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HACKAMORE ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 101 (PIDS 36-119- 23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36-119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 AND 36-119-23-44-0030) (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) WHEREAS, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (the “applicant”) has requested approval of “Walcott Glen” a residential subdivision on property legal described as follows: See Attachment A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the plan at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that the Corcoran City Council hereby approves the request for preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved to create 129 lots and five outlots for “Walcott Glen”, in accordance with the plans and application received by the City on February 15, 2022, February 24, 2022, March 11, 2022, March 30, 2022, April 6, 2022, April 26, 2022 and April 27, 2022, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Approval is contingent upon City Council approval of the preliminary PUD plan for “Walcott Glen”. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the preliminary PUD plan approval (Resolution 2022-64). 3. Park dedication is due as required by the PUD approvals, prior to the release of final plat for recording. 4. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the City Engineer’s memo, dated April 24, 2022. 5. The preliminary plat shall be revised to list all nine parcels included in the development. 6. Approval shall expire within one year of the date of approval unless the applicant has filed a complete application for approval of the final plat. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-65 Page 2 of 4 VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-65 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANC That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANC The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANC The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property. Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANC The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Lot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-65 Page 4 of 4 Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITION Abstract Property. Parcel 9: No Title Commitment Provided at this time Outlot B, RAVINIA 11th ADDITION Abstract Property. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-462 Page 1 of 1 Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2022-461 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP IN TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE (CITY FILE NO. 22-015) Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is hereby amended by changing the classification on the City of Corcoran Zoning Map to Planned Unit Development (PUD). A printed copy of the entire amendment is available for inspection by any person at City Hall during the City Clerk’s regular office hours. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director Hennepin County Property Map Date: 4/14/2022 Comments: 1 inch = 400 feet PARCEL ID: 3611923440010 OWNER NAME: R C Schnell & B S Schnell PARCEL ADDRESS: 6235 Co Rd No 101, Corcoran MN 55340 PARCEL AREA: 5.68 acres, 247,354 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $1,200,000 SALE DATA: 05/2021 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2021, PAYABLE 2022 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $866,000 TAX TOTAL: $12,914.40 ASSESSED 2022, PAYABLE 2023 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,123,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is not suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Walcott Glen – Preliminary Plat Review Date: April 24, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents: 1. Walcott Glen Preliminary Plans, prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc,. dated February 14th, 2022. 2. Walcott Glen ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey (Draft), Prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc,. dated October 21st, 2021 3. Walcott Glen Preliminary Plat, Prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc,. dated March 8th, 2022 4. Hackamore Road Development Stormwater Management Plan, Prepared by AE2S, dated February 15th, 2022. Comments: General: 1. The City process requires the applicant to submit a written response to this memorandum. Submit the written response with revised plans. 2. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to addition planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City of Corcoran. 3. Final approval by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission must be attained before any site grading or activity may commence. 4. For any site activity (demo, grading, utilities, etc.) no closures or restrictions of any kind shall be imposed upon the public use of Hackamore Road/CSAH 101 without the City’s/County’s permission. Should any lane restrictions be necessary, the Contractor shall notify the City/County at least 48 hours in advance and provide a Traffic Control Plan. 5. Construction access to 63rd Ave and Lupine Lane shall be achieved through the existing development for grading and utilities to the extend practical. During street and home construction, accommodations and signage may be necessary to limit impacts on existing residents and roadways. 6. Well and septic system abandonment shall be completed by a licensed contractor and abandonment shall be permitted with final documentation provided to the City. 7. An encroachment agreement shall be required for all site improvements or items placed within the City ROW or easements. This includes but is not limited to retaining walls and irrigation systems. April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 7 8. The final plat plans shall clearly identify the existing turnarounds, retaining walls and features adjacent to the proposed development that will need to be removed or modified to accommodate the improvements. 9. There is existing storm sewer and structures within Larkspur Lane that need to be identified on final plat plans. 10. A feasibility study was completed by Stantec Dated April 2022. Developer shall be responsible for the conditions and offsite improvements as outlined in the feasibility study. Plat: 1. The applicant shall have all drainage and utility easements provided and shown and all platting requirements met per the City Code. Drainage and utility easements (5’ – 10’) shall be provided along property lines, as standard per City requirements. 2. Blanket drainage and utility easement required over all outlots shown on preliminary plat. 3. Provide separate trail easement for all trails/sidewalks located outside of the ROW 4. Provide additional easement for storm sewer C3 to C5 5. Existing easement along north property line to be vacated. 6. 40’ half Right of Way required on Hackamore Road. 7. If Hackamore trail is located within the proposed development, trail easements will be required over final alignment. 8. It is assumed that D&U easements will be provided over the common space parcels for the townhomes. If not, additional D&U easements for the storm sewer and utilities will be necessary. Erosion Control/SWPPP 1. Preparation of and compliance with a SWPPP shall be required for construction. Transportation 1. All 28’ roads shall be signed no parking on one side of the roadway with no parking signs required within all cul-de-sacs. Final sign location to be coordinated at time of final plat. 2. The turn lanes into the project site are anticipated to be a City-led project. If so, the developer shall establish an escrow prior to the turn lanes being designed and publicly bid. 3. All parking areas shall have concrete curbing and a paved surface. 4. Southern edge of emergency turnaround on private drive to be shifted 15’ north of property line to provide adequate space for snow storage. If trail is routed through this corridor, additional space will be necessary for snow storage and buffer from property lines. April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 3 of 7 Site Plans 1. The existing and proposed drainage and utility easements shown shall be clearly labeled on all plan drawings. The wetland buffer zones shall also be clearly identified and labeled. 2. Street lighting locations shall be reviewed by public safety and final lighting locations shall be determined at the time of final plat. 3. The plan is not showing the 75% Hackamore improvement plan set. At final plat, the entrance to this development shall be coordinated with those proposed improvements to ensure they can be constructed with one another. 4. Trail alignment along Hackamore Road to be coordinated with City Staff at time of final plat. Grading /Stormwater 1. Reference the City of Corcoran Stormwater Guidelines for Development Review for standards for stormwater systems and modeling. 2. The development model was submitted in HydroCad, however further reviews as the project moves forward will need to incorporate and be consistent with the Ravinia LOMR XPSWMM model, submitted to FEMA in February 2022. Ravinia 5th Addition is located immediately west and upstream of the proposed Walcott Glen site and Ravinia 11th Addition is to the northwest, with a few homes adjacent to Wetland H3 of Walcott Glen. 3. Any wetland impacts must be permitted by appropriate agencies and mitigated for. 4. All pedestrian ramps shall be ADA compliant and detailed designs shall be provided for all landings showing elevations in compliance with those requirements. 5. Drainage easements shall be provided over all storm sewer pipes and ponding. Easements shall be shown on the utility plan to ensure they are adequate. o The storm sewer routed between lots 89 and 92 shown below does not have the required easements for access. 6. Plans should incorporate pond to accommodate the adjacent Hackamore Road Improvements. Clarify if that is the purpose of Pond 130. 7. Sumps are required in all storm structures with drops in of 18” or greater as well as the last accessible structures prior to stormwater basins. April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 4 of 7 8. Rational method calculations shall be provided to confirm design is in conformance with City standards at the time of final plat. 9. Provide 12’ pond maintenance access around all proposed ponding areas and encompass by drainage and utility easements. 10. Clearly identify EOF locations, elevations and routes for all areas where water will be collected, including all low areas in roadways and greenspaces. 11. All drainage swales shall maintain a minimum of 2% slope and all slopes shall be 4:1 or flatter unless approved by the city engineer. 12. All walls higher than 4’ shall be designed by a certified engineer and the design and certification of those walls shall be provided to the city. Prior to construction retaining wall designs shall be submitted to the building permit department for construction permit. 13. Along the western property line, provide existing ground elevations along trees to be preserved to verify no conflict with proposed grading. 14. The backyard grading for Lots 3-5 appear like they may trap water to the west. Additional spot elevations are necessary to ensure drainage is maintained. 15. The sideyard grading for lot 19 to the west looks flat. Additional spot elevations are necessary to confirm area drains. A small swale may be necessary on the west of lot 18 to maintain water onsite. 16. The City prefers that the development runoff to Filtration Basin 21 is maintained separate from the runoff from the Ravinia development. If they are combined, a shared maintenance agreement will be necessary to address how the stormwater BMP will be maintained between the two HOA’s. Additionally, the existing pipes, infrastructure and outlets shall be further reviewed to ensure that the existing system can handle to proposed additional runoff. 17. There are several existing driveways and culverts that currently exist within this development. grading plan shall clearly show how driveways and culverts will be removed and how conveyance will be maintained through these areas. 18. During the Ravinia 11th Development, an overland EOF elevation was determined and shown that conveys runoff from Wetland 4 to Wetland 3. Those plans identified that if Lakespur Lane was extended in the future, that the overland EOF be maintained or a piped EOF would be necessary. This development appears to have impacted the overland EOF and therefore a separate piped EOF will be necessary from Wetland 4 to Wetland 3. 19. In the Ravinia 11th Addition plans the HWL of Wetland 4 (wetland 16 of the Ravinia plans) was identified at 984.9 and is now identified as 984.5. Clarify the change. 20. In addition to the piped EOF Comment, the piped outlet from Wetland 4 to Wetland 3 that was installed is not shown on these plans and shall be added. 21. Drainage maps in the SWMP should include labels for all contributing areas (i.e. flow locations). For example, Wild Meadows (1S) and ‘new pond’ (130P) are not shown. This is needed for completeness and to understand the overall drainage network for the area and how it connects in to the proposed Walcott Glen site. Currently the model shows April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 5 of 7 that Basin 2 discharges to Wetland H1 which flows through Wild Meadows Channel to 130P, however the drainage map does not provide detail consistent with this, see below. Also, wetland H1 appears to have a pipe/berm between the two separate storage areas, yet these are not included in the model and the direct drainage areas are not defined. 22. Related to the comment above, existing and proposed conditions show that pond 130P (not shown in report) backs up into Wild Meadows Channel approximately 5 feet during a 100-year storm event. Check for accuracy and consider modifications if necessary. Work with City to address if needed. 23. Correct or explain error and warning messages reported in the HydroCAD models, specifically for the 100 year storm. Currently there are several locations which are flagged, typically due to backwater impacts. 24. Multiple existing storm sewer runs on Parcels 3 and 4 appear to be missing from the survey. Verify and show remaining existing storm sewer. o Wetland #3 o Discharge across CSAH 101 o Existing driveways from Wetland 9 to Hackamore Road. 25. Per the Feasibility Study, replacement/modification of the existing plastic weir to the north is required. Provide a concept plan in next submittal. 26. Site shall incorporate adjacent roadway water quality and drainage within the site BMPs. 27. The City strongly prefers the use of NURP Ponds with filtration components vs the filtration basins provided unless NURP Ponds are shown to be infeasible. 28. The NRCS web soil survey shows dual classification HSG ratings of C/D. All existing conditions should use the higher value HSG Rating value of the dual classification. Additionally, HSG Rating shall be downgraded one level in proposed conditions according to City of Corcoran Stormwater Guidelines. This suggests a C soil in existing and D classification for proposed conditions for this site. 29. Time of concentration sheet flow lengths should have a maximum value of 100 feet. Provide all assumptions used for time of concentration calculations . 30. Model OCS slanted grates as custom orifices. The current model includes horizontal orifices which overestimate flows at the invert elevation set. City can provide information upon request. 31. Match the labeling of the back yard catch basin names with the HydroCAD model. April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 6 of 7 32. Provide filtration basin drain tile invert elevations, slopes, and size on plans. Additionally, provide documentation that the drain tile has capacity to handle the required infiltrated runoff. 33. Provide storm sewer plan and profile sheets for the final plan set. 34. The following should be provided for Basins 2 and 21 if it remains a filtration basin: o OCS detail o Forebay and pond grading o Difference in North and South Basin 21 HWL elevations 35. Filtration Basin #1 needs an outlet structure. 36. Filtration Basin #2 does not have a piped outlet. Therefor the hydraulic model would need to be started at the lip of the OCS if not regular outlet is provided. 37. Outlet device from existing conditions Wetland H4 changes by .05. in proposed. The starting elevation was not changed in the Wetland H4 proposed model. Normal water level should be adjusted to match the controlling outlet device invert. Check that all normal water levels are consistent with plans. 38. Wetland H2 shows the NWL outlet pipe at 962.8. Table 5.1 in the stormwater report shows it as a 962.1. Update report to match the model. Check that all normal water levels are consistent with plans. 39. Current Basin 2 EOF is shown as directed over the entrance road. Grading should show that EOF flows up through the 100 year storm event will stay in the ditch which flows to the wetland. Confirm all EOF routes in the model are consistent with what is shown in the proposed grading. 40. If possible, show existing stormsewer infrastructure of adjacent communities where existing and proposed drainage ties in. This includes, as mentioned previously, detail for the ‘new pond’ at 130P. This pond shows a 30” culvert and EOF, without any information shown in the plans or drainage maps. 41. Provide and operation and maintenance plan for all proposed stormwater BMPs. MPCA stormwater manual is recommended as a reference. 42. There are existing culverts located on the very west side of Wetland H1 for an existing driveway and walking bridge. These culverts should be removed if possible and modeling should verify if any additional accommodations are necessary due to their removal. 43. Wetland H3 is routed Pond 1. Currently it appears that wetlands H3 and H2 are connected via driveway culvert. Stormwater model shall confirm that pipes and ponds can accommodate Wetland H3 discharging directly into Pond 1 or whether it should be routed around to H2 as it drains today. 44. There are several trees shown to be preserved that do not appear practical to preserve based on the grading plan. Several areas are noted below. o North of Pond 3 south of Wetland #4. o In the rear yards of lots 38-40 April 24, 2022 Walcott Glen Kevin Mattson Page 7 of 7 Watermain/Sanitary Sewer 1. Gas, electric, and other private and public utilities are located adjacent and/or on the property. Preservation of existing easements and coordination with all public and private utilities must be conducted prior to commencing any grading or construction. 2. Plan and profiles for all utilities shall be provided at the time of final plat submittals. 3. Valve locations to be reviewed at time of final plat. Generally, valves shall be located at all intersection as one less valve than the number of legs. Valves should typically be located out from the end radius points unless specific circumstances don’t allow. 4. Hydrant spacing to be reviewed by public safety at time of final plat. 5. Watermain on private drive dead end to be looped to 62nd Ave N watermain. 6. Services to lot 44 to be installed as part of this development. No services exist currently. 7. The water and sewer under the private roads are assumed to be city utilities. The HOA documents shall identify repair and replacement responsibilities for the private roadways in the event the utilities need to be repaired/replaced or a separate encroachment agreement will be necessary. End of Comments Walcott Glenn Pulte Infrastructure Feasibility Study April 2022 Prepared for: City of Corcoran, MN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Maple Plain, MN 55359 Project Number: 227704829 WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Table of Contents April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1.1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................2.1 2.1 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................2.1 2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS....................................................2.1 2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................2.1 2.4 TRAFFIC FORECASTS .................................................................................................2.1 2.5 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS......................................................................................................2.3 2.6 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................2.5 3.0 SEWER AND WATER....................................................................................................3.6 3.1 WASTEWATER..............................................................................................................3.6 3.2 WATER...........................................................................................................................3.6 4.0 WATER RESOURCES...................................................................................................4.6 4.1 REGULATORY OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................4.6 4.2 WATERSHED SETTING AND LAND USE ....................................................................4.7 4.3 WETLANDS....................................................................................................................4.7 4.4 ROADWAY DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................4.7 4.5 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................4.8 5.0 FINANCING....................................................................................................................5.1 5.1 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................5.1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................6.1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project...........................................................2.2 Table 2: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................2.2 Table 3: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................................2.3 Table 4: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results ....................................................2.4 Table 5: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results ....................................................2.4 WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Table of Contents April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 FIGURES Figure 1 Preliminary Plat Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A Stormwater Modeling Guidelines WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Introduction April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 1.0 Introduction Pulte Homes is proposing to construct a residential development at the NW corner of Hackamore Road and County State Aid Highway 101 (CSAH 101) in southeast Corcoran. The area is currently large lot (rural) residential homes and is being proposed as a residential development with a mix of single-family homes and attached townhomes. The Feasibility Study is the basis for understanding the impacts on public infrastructure by the proposed development. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 2.0 Transportation 2.1 Background This study examined weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic impacts of the proposed development at the following intersections: CSAH 101/Hackamore Road Hackamore Road/Goldenrod Trail (future) 2.2 Proposed Development Characteristics For purpose of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed development is assumed to consist of the following uses: 47 single family dwelling units 82 townhouse dwelling units 2.3 Existing Conditions The proposed site consists of existing large lot single family homes that will be removed as part of the project. The project site is bounded by CSAH 101 on the east, Hackamore Road on the south, and Ravinia single family homes to the west and north. Near the site location, CSAH 101 is a two-lane undivided roadway with turn lanes at major intersections. Hackamore Road is a two-lane undivided roadway near the site location. Existing conditions near the proposed project location are described below. CSAH 101/Hackamore Road - This signalized intersection provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane on the northbound and southbound approaches. The eastbound and westbound approaches consist of one lane shared by all movements. Turn movement data was recorded at the existing intersection during the a.m. (6:00 – 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (3:00 – 6:00 p.m.) peak periods in February, 2022. These volumes were used in the development of traffic forecasts for the project. 2.4 Traffic Forecasts To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2027. Specifically, weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: 2022 Existing. Existing volumes were determined through traffic counts at the CSAH 101/Hackamore Road intersection. The existing volume information includes trips generated by the uses near the project site. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 2027 No-Build. Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by 1.0 percent per year to determine 2027 No-Build volumes. The 1.0 percent per year growth rate was calculated based on historic traffic volume growth in the project area. 2027 Build. Trips generated by the proposed development were added to the 2027 No-Build volumes to determine 2027 Build volumes. The expected new development trips were calculated based on data presented in Trip Generation, Eleventh Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. These calculations represent total trips that will be generated by the proposed development. The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed Project Land Use Size Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Daily In Out Total In Out Total Total Single Family 47 DU 9 24 33 28 16 44 443 Townhouses 82 DU 12 27 39 27 20 47 590 Totals 21 51 72 55 36 91 1033 Note: DU=dwelling units Trip distribution percentages for the Pulte development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are described below: 15 percent to/from the north on CSAH 101 45 percent to/from the east on Hackamore Road 15 percent to/from the south on CSAH 101 20 percent to/from the west on Hackamore Road 5 percent to/from the north on Goldenrod Trail/Larkspur Lane Development trips from Table 1 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The resultant peak hour volumes are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes CSAH 101/ Hackamore Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 13 143 29 138 43 32 11 151 130 83 299 16 2027 No-Build 22 229 45 62 34 16 159 137 87 314 27 7 2027 Build 26 251 53 145 71 34 18 159 137 87 314 29 Hackamore Rd/ Goldenrod Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 185 70 2027 No-Build 2 276 100 5 ---20 5 2027 Build 7 276 100 18 54 16 WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 Table 3: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes CSAH 101/ Hackamore Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 19 74 22 126 81 64 30 379 136 68 300 20 2027 No-Build 31 119 29 132 158 67 61 398 143 71 315 29 2027 Build 34 135 35 132 183 67 70 398 143 71 315 33 Hackamore Rd/ Goldenrod Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing 115 131 2027 No-Build 5 174 228 20 5 2 2027 Build 16 174 228 58 30 10 2.5 Traffic Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours using Synchro software. Initial analysis was completed using existing geometrics and intersection control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which is defined in terms of traffic delay at the intersection. LOS ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The following is a detailed description of the conditions described by each LOS designation: Level of service A corresponds to a free flow condition with motorists virtually unaffected by the intersection control mechanism. For a signalized or an unsignalized intersection, the average delay per vehicle would be approximately 10 seconds or less. Level of service B represents stable flow with a high degree of freedom, but with some influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. For a signalized intersection, the average delay ranges from 10 to 20 seconds. An unsignalized intersection would have delays ranging from 10 to 15 seconds for this level. Level of service C depicts a restricted flow which remains stable, but with significant influence from the intersection control device and the traffic volumes. The general level of comfort and convenience changes noticeably at this level. The delay ranges from 20 to 35 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 15 to 25 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service D corresponds to high-density flow in which speed and freedom are significantly restricted. Though traffic flow remains stable, reductions in comfort and convenience are experienced. The control delay for this level is 35 to 55 seconds for a signalized intersection and 25 to 35 seconds for an unsignalized intersection. Level of service E represents unstable flow of traffic at or near the capacity of the intersection with poor levels of comfort and convenience. The delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and from 35 to 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection at this level. Level of service F represents forced flow in which the volume of traffic approaching the intersection exceeds the volume that can be served. Characteristics often experienced include WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 long queues, stop-and-go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience, and increased accident exposure. Delays over 80 seconds for a signalized intersection and over 50 seconds for an unsignalized intersection correspond to this level of service. The LOS results for the study intersections are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4: Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results CSAH 101/ Hackamore Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection 2022 Existing B A A C A A A A A A A A B 2027 No-Build C A A C A A B B B A B A B 2027 Build C A A C A A B B B B B B B Hackamore Rd/ Goldenrod Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing A A A 2027 No-Build A A A A B B A 2027 Build A A A A B B A Table 5: Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results CSAH 101/ Hackamore Rd EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection 2022 Existing B A A C A A A B A A A A B 2027 No-Build B A A C A A A B A A B A B 2027 Build B A A C A A A B B A B B B Hackamore Rd/ Goldenrod Tr EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2022 Existing A A A 2027 No-Build A A A A B B A 2027 Build A A A A B B A As shown in Tables 4 and 5, all movements and intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under all scenarios. Vehicle queue length impacts at the CSAH 101/Hackamore Road intersection were reviewed using SimTraffic software. The SimTraffic simulations were reviewed for all scenarios to determine if any vehicle queues on Hackamore Road would impede traffic operations at the Hackamore Road/Goldenrod Trail intersection. Based on the current site plan, this intersection is located approximately 600 feet west of CSAH 101. Under all scenarios, the longest queue length was 177 feet on the eastbound approach at CSAH 101 during the weekday a.m. peak hour. All other eastbound queue lengths were shorter than 177 feet. Therefore, vehicle queues from the CSAH 101/Hackamore Road intersection are not expected to impact the proposed access locations on Hackamore Road with a right turn in place. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Transportation April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 2.6 Findings The following mitigation measures are recommended at each intersection: CSAH 101/Hackamore Road No improvements for the traffic flow are needed. Hackamore Road/Goldenrod Trail Hackamore Road should be reconstructed in front of the development limits as has been required per City practice for new development projects. Hackamore Road is planned to be improved to a two lane roadway with both right and left turns into the main access. If the reconstruction project is undertaken as part of a larger project of Hackamore Road, the developer shall share in those costs for the portion in front of the plat boundary. Corcoran has been coordinating with Medina and will continue to pursue other funds available. Approximately 5% of the trips from this project are expected to travel north and west through the existing residential area. This equates to approximately 50 trips per day. This level of increase will not impact traffic operations on the surrounding roadways. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Sewer and Water April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 3.0 Sewer and Water The development has laterals available from Ravinia and the existing water model was previously executed for pressure and fire flow. Corcoran will eventually have a tower and booster station so the analysis was provided for both (No Tower and With Tower). Secondly, the conditions represent that the 2020 Trunk Water Main is installed and operating along CR 116 west of Ravinia which provides “looping” for the SE corner of Corcoran. 3.1 Wastewater The development can be serviced by the laterals installed with Ravinia as follows: Through Lupine Lane for the proposed northwest cul-de-sac Through Goldenrod Trail for the remainder of the development. These sewer stubs are adequate to service the proposed development. It should be noted that this development drains to the L-80 lift station which has a limited capacity. This development is within the current staging plan and would not cause the lift station capacity to be exceeded based on currently approved development applications. 3.2 Water The water supply to this area were previously reviewed by the city to determine if there would by any benefit to the City system by increasing the size of the watermain loop through this parcel vs the long term benefits of the booster station to be provide adjacent to the Maple Grove border within the Cook Lake Development. In that exercise upgrading the line from the existing 8-inch loop to a 12-inch loop provided almost no benefit from either fire flow or pressure in the system. Because of this outcome, the 8-inch loop is adequate to provide water supply and pressure to the proposed development. There are several dead end stubs shown on the proposed development plans. As part of the plan review process, those shall be revied for compliance with City standards and looping can be assumed to be required. 4.0 Water Resources 4.1 Regulatory Overview Stormwater management regulations in the proposed project area would be guided or directed by Corcoran’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (Local Plan) the City’s Guidelines, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and MS4 requirements. Each of these documents has a larger regulatory context: WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Water Resources April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 The Local Plan reflects the goals, policies and rules of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission’s Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (Commission’s WMP). The SWPPP is a requirement of the City’s stormwater permit, also known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The MS4 permit is issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which was reissued in October of 2021. Among other goals, both documents include plans to meet pollutant load reductions calculated in the Elm Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study. TMDL studies are required for surface waters that are designated as impaired – in other words, those that do not meet one or more State water quality standards. City guidelines lay out the required modeling parameters, preferred BMPs and some construction materials. City approval is required prior to application for the WMO approval process. Further City review occurs with construction plan approval process. 4.2 Watershed Setting and Land Use Stormwater is manageable for the site and will be subject to City stormwater guidelines, wetland regulations and Elm Creek Watershed approval. Site drainage is to the southeast and it can be estimated from other developments in the west metro with heavy soils, that 3% to 5% of the buildable parcel area would be utilized for stormwater management (outside wetland boundaries). This site has elevation “drop” which will allow for higher pond storage and result in the lower end of the range (3% of buildable area) for an estimate of pond footprint area. Drainage to southeast enters a culvert under Hackamore Road, then is channeled back under Hackamore Road from Medina near CR 101, eventually discharging into Plymouth. FEMA LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) process is being conducted for Ravinia drainage to the west, therefore upstream floodplain elevation will be established, however that process is not foreseen to affect this building site. One unique site feature is a heavy duty plastic weir for a pond that drains onto the property. The weir was reviewed during Ravinia 11th and determined that repair/replacement would occur during redevelopment of these residential properties. Grading may be feasible to eliminate the weir, however a permanent weir (steel sheet pile) could be necessary. 4.3 Wetlands Significant wetlands exist and the formal process will need to be followed. It can be noted that Corcoran is the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act and obtained this authority in 2019. 4.4 Roadway Drainage Improvements The adjacent Hackamore roadway is anticipated to be improved in the future to help support the amount of development within the area. As part of the improvements, a stormwater BMP system will be incorporated to manage runoff from the development. As part of the preliminary planning completed by the city on the project, there is proposed ponding for the improvements which are identified on this parcel. The stormwater management system shall be designed to accommodate the runoff from the roadway improvements. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Water Resources April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 Incorporating the stormwater management system after the corridor is developed will make installing the necessary ponds and infrastructure for the system extremely difficult if not impossible. Because of this, planning for this stormwater system will be required with each development to ensure the roadway which is being improved to support development can be constructed. 4.5 Findings The stormwater shown on the concept plan will be modified during design and approval process. City stormwater guidelines will be utilized (see Attachment A) that cover modeling and drainage items. This may be updated by final plat approval. An emergency overflow or diversion culvert conveying stormwater under the development’s main entrance may be required to protect Hackamore Road during extreme events. Replacement / modification of the existing plastic weir is required. Drainage coordination with Hackamore Road project will be required, this site shall incorporate adjacent roadway water quality and drainage within the site BMPs. FEMA LOMR process is underway for upstream Ravinia and FEMA floodplain may include the Walcott Glenn drainageway. Stormwater fee may be adopted by the City and this development may incur those costs. Hackamore Road treatment costs would be eligible for credits (if a stormwater fee is in place). WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Financing April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 5.0 Financing 5.1 Summary Financing options of the development necessary for infrastructure and to mitigate impacts typically follow the approach of: On-site infrastructure is managed by the developer All trunk sewer, water fees (TLAC), will be due at the time of platting. Stormwater fee may be implemented by City prior to final platting. Off-site projects are managed by the by City (engineering, bidding and construction management) through an escrow. The financial package will be further detailed and negotiated as the project moves forward and culminates in the Developer Agreement with the overall preliminary plat approval which is updated for each phase of the development WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Conclusions and Recommendations April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The following infrastructure improvements are feasible and necessary to manage the development. These improvements are consistent with similar requirements for other developments in Corcoran, and have shown to be necessary for managing the additional population: Sewer Sewer is available through Ravinia. Locations to be formalized with development construction plans. Water Previous application for this development show that supply and fire flow are adequate through Ravinia. Looping will be required and determined during construction plan review process. Water Resources Replacement / modification of the existing plastic weir is required. Coordination with Hackamore reconstruction project (currently at a 75% design plan stage) will be required, this site may provide combined benefit for treatment or wetland mitigation. A formal FEMA LOMR process is underway for Ravinia and FEMA floodplain may include the Walcott Glenn drainageway. Stormwater fee may be adopted by the City and this development may incur those costs. Credit would be provided for Hackamore Road treatment, if the City fee is in place. Stormwater treatment for the trail shall be provided by the development and credits towards any City fee (if in place) will be provided. Transportation CSAH 101/Hackamore Road No improvements for traffic flow are needed. Hackamore Road/Goldenrod Trail Hackamore Road should be reconstructed in front of the development limits as has been required per City practice for new development projects. Hackamore Road is planned to be improved to a two lane roadway with both right and left turns into the main access. If the reconstruction project is undertaken as part of a larger project of Hackamore Road, the developer shall share in those costs for the portion in front of the plat boundary. Corcoran has been coordinating with Medina and will continue to pursue other funds available. WALCOTT GLENN PULTE INFRASTRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CORCORAN, MN Conclusions and Recommendations April 2022 Project Number: 227704829 Trail along Hackamore Road The development shall incorporate the Hackamore Road trail alignment on the final plans. Responsibility for grading/paving will be according to typical City policy. FIGURES Figure 1 Site Plan APPENDIX A Stormwater Modeling Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines for Development March 2019 Issue Cities changing from rural to urban development are challenged by the additional stormwater generated due to construction of impervious surfaces, along with the offsite infrastructure, or lack thereof, to manage effectively. To standardize the modeling and review process, the guidelines below were created for efficiency. Note: A watershed approval is required per Elm Creek WMO rules, which also reviews flow rates, water quality and volume management. Modeling Watershed Information · Provide an aerial photo of the development that includes the overall watershed and subwatershed boundaries · Provide a summary of the acreage to each discharge point leaving the site. Any increase (or decrease) shall be identified. · Show any floodplain adjacent to project or within the project · Show downstream water bodies and flow paths o Downstream flow paths and water bodies typically need to have elevations, inverts, and condition identified. Subwatersheds A HydroCAD model (typically used) has inputs that can vary by user. To minimize resubmittals, review time and effort, the following data shall be utilized. · Electronic model shall be submitted · Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) shall be lowered one category due to the mass grading and compaction of the soils. For example, an existing B soil, shall be modeled as a proposed C soil (unless it remains undisturbed) · Wetlands, filtration basins, and ponds shall be modeled at CN of 98 · Identify peak rates for storm events and proposed shall be equal or less than existing rates. o Note: There are certain conditions where at City’s discretion the off-site conditions require a reduction in flow rate from existing rates. · SWMM (i.e. EPA-, XP-, or PC-) models can be submitted for review, however these increase review time. Model Setup for Outlet Control Structures, NWLs and Infiltration · The model’s flow control structures (OCS, culverts, etc.) shall match the construction plan information. During the plan and model review both may be modified and revised · Individual detail plates are required for each OCS, and individual plates shall have inverts identified · A pond or wetland NWL (and model starting elevation) shall be set at the constructed outlet control elevation. o No live storage shall be utilized below the controlling OCS elevation. o No live storage shall be used for filtration shelves on ponds below controlling OCS elevation · If a pond or wetland has an NWL (wet surface), infiltration shall not be used in flood routing. · If a pond has filtration BMP causing drawdown below the NWL, this drawdown elevation shall not be used as the NWL for flood routing. (Filtration has a slower release time and during wet periods is not available as live storage). Construction Plans Catch Basins · Street drainage shall be sufficient to manage the 10-year event · Typical a CB inlet capacity is 2 to 2.5 CFS, and CBs shall be spaced accordingly · Three inches (0.25 feet) of head on a CB will inundate a street centerline (2% slope). · Spacing is 200 to 250 feet using longitudinal street dimensions of 40 feet from road centerline to half the house footprint (assumes rear half of house drains to rear yard). Dimensions equal 10,000 SF. · CBs may be required on both sides of ped ramps to capture flows Natural Drainage Features · Waterbodies receiving urban drainage (wetlands, ditches, gullies) may need to have OCS installed, erosion protection, or reduced flow rates to allow the feature to function over the long term due to more consistent flows from increased impervious via development · Offsite work may be necessary and City will assist with coordination, easements, etc. HWLs and EOFs · The freeboard requirements are: o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the HWL o Low Opening is a minimum of two feet above the EOF · EOFs shall be accurately shown and as builts are required. The highest point shall be the EOF (for example top of curb) since this is the controlling elevation o In certain instances, channel calculations of the swale may be required to show the EOF has capacity to manage estimated flow · Overland EOFs are preferred, however if a second pipe serves as an EOF then modeling will include a 100-year event using the second pipe (EOF) as the only outlet (primary outlet plugged). Rear Yards · Rear yards or swales less than 2% shall have draintile. Typically, every two to three lots will require rear yard CBs. Sump Connections · Houses adjoining a wetland or pond do not need individual sump connection · Others will have access to rear yard stormsewer. Offsite Impacts Adjacent Parcels · City will review adjacent parcels (downstream and upstream) for impacts from volume, point discharge, etc. and may require off site improvements. City will assist in coordination of any off site work. · Off site water quality improvement projects may be determined by the City for assistance with compliance with City’s TMDL approach of implementing improvements upon development. · FEMA modifications may be necessary due to development and implemented by City. Page 1 of 1 CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340 763.420.2288 E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site – www.corcoranmn.gov Memo To: Planning (Planners Lindahl and Davis) From: Lieutenant Burns Date: April 21st, 2022 Re: City File 22-015 Walcott Glen A Public Safety plan review meeting was held on April 12th, 2022. In attendance were Director of Public Safety Gottschalk, Lieutenant Ryan Burns, Fire Chief Feist, Fire Chief Leuer, Fire Chief Malewicki, and Construction Services Specialist Pritchard. The comments below are based on the concept plans received by the City on April 21st, 2022 and are intended as initial feedback as further plan review will need to be completed as construction plans are available. 1. Private streets may be posted no parking, fire lane 2. Fire hydrant locations need to be approved by the Fire Chief. 3. Private street hammer head to meet city specifications, posted no parking fire lane. Prefer the road to connect or a cul-de-sac. 4. Provide visitation parking spaces for the townhomes. 5. Private Streets to be marked with Blue Street signs. RE: Walcott (CSAH 101 @ Hackamore) - HC staff comments Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> Thu 5/12/2022 10:11 AM To: Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us> Cc: Ashley Morello <Ashley.Morello@hennepin.us>;Natalie Davis McKeown (ndavis@corcoranmn.gov) <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov>;Dwight Klingbeil (dklingbeil@corcoranmn.gov) <dklingbeil@corcoranmn.gov>;kmattson@corcoranmn.gov <kmattson@corcoranmn.gov>;Hegland, Steven <steven.hegland@stantec.com>;Torve, Kent <kent.torve@stantec.com>;Nicholas Ouellette <NOuellette@Landform.net> Jason, Thank you for the comments. We did not have the stormwater report when we sent the applica.on to Ashley on February 17th for review and comment, but here is a link to those documents. hƩps://we.tl/t‐SMTiRuwzhF Kendra Lindahl, AICP LANDFORM, Principal Planner Direct: 612-638-0225 From: Jason D Goƪried <Jason.Goƪried@hennepin.us> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 9:31 AM To: Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> Cc: Ashley Morello <Ashley.Morello@hennepin.us> Subject: WalcoƩ (CSAH 101 @ Hackamore) ‐ HC staff comments Hello Kendra, Hope all is well with you One of our colleagues passed along the most recent Corcoran planning commission agenda (05/05) with the WalcoƩ preliminary plat in parƟcular. While we previously provided a formal comment leƩer for the Eagle Brook Church plat on this site, for good measure we reviewed the WalcoƩ plat in our latest plat review cmte mtg (05/10) and offer the following staff comments for your team’s consideraƟon: Consistent with our 2020 comment letter, we request a 60’ half right-of-way along Brockton Ln (Consistent with Ravinia dedication to the north as well) No direct access on Brockton Lane proposed Confirm removal of vacated farmstead driveway access on Brockton Appreciate the internal street connectivity. Given the residential compatibility of land uses, we wouldn’t anticipate (or approve) a request for access to Brockton with this project We are supportive of the multi-modal trail along Hackamore with connection to existing trail on Brockton (south of site) We request grading of a level pad along Brockton Ln so that we may more easily deliver a public trail amenity with a future project TBD We appreciate continued coordination with Corcoran and Medina for the scheduled reconstruction of Hackamore (we support the planned turn lanes to the site and trail along Hackamore Rd) We recommend an easement(s) is/are secured for future sidewalk/trail connection(s) from the cul de sac(s) streets to Brockton Ln When available, please provide a copy of the stormwater report so we can ensure internal capture of any increase in runoff rate flow Thank you for your consideraƟon, let us know if you would like any further clarificaƟon Jason Jason Gottfried Transportation Planner Transportation Planning Office: 612-596-0394 Cell: 612-719-8073 jason.gottfried@hennepin.us Hennepin County Public Works 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340 1 “Building Incredible Places Where People Can Live Their Dreams.” Walcott Glen APPLICATION FOR: Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, PUD Preliminary Plan CORCORAN, MINNESOTA April 27, 2022 Introduction Pulte Homes of Minnesota, LLC (“Pulte”) is pleased to be submitting this application. Our company mission statement is “Building Incredible Places Where People Can Live Their Dreams.” We currently operate under three distinct brands of homebuilding throughout the country: Pulte Homes, Centex Homes, and Del Webb. The office for Pulte’s Minnesota Division is in Eden Prairie. We will sell and build approximately 900 homes in the Twin Cities in 2022 under the Pulte Homes and Del Webb brands. Pulte will act as both developer of the property and builder of the homes. The primary contact for Pulte is Paul Heuer, Director of Land Planning & Entitlement. Paul’s contact information has been provided to City staff. The owners of the properties are: Robert and Beth Schnell 11907 Wayzata Boulevard Suite 300 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 669-7159 Email: bschnell@centeragency.com JTC, LLC 8401 Xene Lane North Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 Attn: James Casey Phone: 612-247-9888 Email: suecasey@comcast.net Homeland Investments LLC 19220 Hackamore Road Corcoran, Minnesota 55340 Phone: 612-388-8753 Email: jackieh30@msn.com Gregory and Jackie Hoglund 19220 Hackamore Road Corcoran, MN 55340 2 Phone: 612-388-8753 Email: jackieh30@msn.com The civil engineer and surveyor are: Sathre-Bergquist Attn: Bob Molstad & Eric Johnson 150 South Broadway Wayzata, MN 55391 (952) 476-6000 molstad@sathre.com The Property Addresses 19200, 19210, and 19220 Hackamore Road 6235 and 6301 County Road 101 N Legal Descriptions County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: The North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: The East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: The East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of the South 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota. Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South 1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23. Abstract Property County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is described as follows: The South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 3 Property Identification Numbers 36-119-23-44-0013 36-119-23-44-0009 36-119-23-44-0008 36-119-23-44-0010 36-119-23-44-0014 Neighborhood Driving Forces Development applications must find a way to “thread the needle” by satisfying market demand, City requirements, and Metropolitan Council density requirements. From the standpoint of market demand, the location of a property and it’s characteristics drive what each property “wants to be.” Two primary property characteristics determine the market demand for this property: 1. Wayzata Public Schools – This is a highly sought-after school district. The reputation of this district has pushed land and home prices within the district to higher levels than found in other school districts. Even in the last few years, home prices have increased significantly and it has become increasingly difficult for young families to afford a new home in the school district. 2. 101/Hackamore intersection – CSAH 101 currently carries around 10,000 vehicles per day at this location. In 2040, it is estimated that this section of road will carry 16,200 vehicles per day. In 2040, it is estimated that Hackamore will carry 4,700 vehicles per day. High traffic intersections such as this one tends to guide adjacent used to be of higher intensity for many reasons. For instance, the buyers of large luxury single family homes are less tolerant of living next to noisy, high traffic intersections. Original Site Plan Design The above characteristics guided the preparation of the site plan that was submitted for Site Plan Review in October. The existing single-family homes in the NE corner (on 63rd Avenue N) have two-car garages. The new single-family homes will also have two-car garages and the values of these homes will be comparable to the existing adjacent homes. Along the west boundary of the subject property, existing single-family homes have three-car garages. We have closely studied this housing transition and have devised an extraordinary buffer between the existing homes and the new homes consisting of: 1. Additional buffer space - We have purposely left an unusually wide gap between existing homes and new homes. 2. Preservation of existing trees - An existing buffer of mature trees runs along a portion of the west property line. Many of these trees are conifers which provide a strong year- round visual buffer. We inventoried the trees on the property and determined that we can feasibly preserve most trees along this boundary. 3. Planting of additional trees - In some areas, the existing buffer of trees is not strong. In these areas, we plan to plant conifer trees to strengthen this visual buffer. 4 Combined, this approach will result in a very strong visual buffer between homes in the existing neighborhood and the new homes. We have heard comments that perhaps the existing public park in the adjacent Ravinia neighborhood (Wildflower Park) may be undersized. This park is approximately ½ mile away from the subject property. If the City determines that a small additional public tot lot and/or park is desirable in the subject property, we have determined that it could be accommodated. Our site plan shows this option for your consideration. We are also showing a conceptual trail routing along the north side of Hackamore for when this road is reconstructed. We are willing to accommodate the trail drifting onto the neighborhood property to create a more varied and attractive route. The City may choose to either obtain an easement from us for a future trail improvement or have us provide the easement and construct this section of trail with credit for park dedication. It should also be noted that this property represents an entry point into the City of Corcoran. It is our understanding that there has been some interest in keeping the public view of this corner attractive and/or rural looking. We have worked hard to keep strong visual buffers in place throughout the perimeter of the new neighborhood. For instance, there is a strong existing tree buffer all along CSAH 101 which will substantially be preserved. We have also set back the townhomes from 101 at a highly unusual 223 feet (requirement is 100 feet w/o buffer and 50 feet with buffer). Similarly, along Hackamore homes in the western half are set back over 235 feet (requirement is 25 feet). In total, these design strategies will result in the presentation of an unusually hidden neighborhood from the perimeter. Revised Site Plan The City Council provided a variety of comments at the City Council meeting of November 22, 2021. Since then we have worked very hard to address those comments. Below is a list of the comments that we addressed: 1. Wide wooded buffers – We heard positive feedback regarding the very wide wooded buffers that we retained, particularly along the west and east boundaries. We have continued to retain these buffers. 2. Views from Hackamore – We heard a request to hide the townhomes further into the neighborhood so that perimeter traffic on Hackamore would see primarily single family homes instead of all townhomes. In response to this comment, we worked through a variety of variations, finalizing settling on a version that added a cul-de-sac of single family homes near Hackamore. We believe this accomplishes the goal that was stated. 3. Buffer from the west – We were asked if there was anything else we could do to improve the buffer from the west. In working with our civil engineer, we found that we could move the NW cul-de-sac some feet to the east to provide a slightly greater buffer than shown earlier. 4. Trees to the north – We heard a question about whether or not any trees would remain south of the large existing pond that is just to the north of the subject property. Although the grades in the area prevent us from preserving trees on the subject site, we determined that there are existing significant trees just north of the subject property that will remain in place. It appears that there are also smaller trees and brush that exist in this area but were too small to be inventoried. 5. Construction traffic – We were questioned about our ability to phase construction work to enable all construction traffic to come from Hackamore and therefore not travel through 5 the existing Ravinia neighborhood. We have evaluated potential phasing and have concluded that we can accomplish this goal. 6. Architecture of homes in the NE cul-de-sac – We heard a question about how our architecture will compare with the architecture of existing homes on the same cul-de- sac. We will commit to evaluating the architecture of the existing homes and to offer new homes having similar architectural features and styles. This may include eliminating some architectural elevations for these six lots or adding specific visual exterior options, if necessary. To summarize our general approach in creating this neighborhood, the primary goals of the site plan were to preserve perimeter buffer trees, preserve wetlands, present a hidden view from the perimeter, provide new and different types of housing that are needed, and to appropriately transition the intensity of the uses from the busy intersection to the existing homes nearby. We appreciate the comments heard from the City Council. We have worked extraordinarily hard to make changes to address those comments and still try to satisfy market demand, City requirements, and Metropolitan Council density requirements. We believe that the revised site plan is a practical approach to the competing forces involved with this property. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan guides these properties as Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential is guided in the Comp Plan as having a density of 3 to 5 units per acre (see below). However, it does not allow townhomes or narrower single-family lots, which are needed to meet a density of 3 to 5 units per acre. With new Comprehensive Plans, it is not uncommon for cities’ zoning ordinances to sometimes not perfectly correlate with their Comprehensive Plan. This application results in a net density of 4 units per acre, which complies with and is in the center of the range for Low Density Residential per the Comprehensive Plan. Key Facts Current Zone RSF-2 Proposed zoning PUD Proposed use 85 townhomes 44 single family homes* Gross area 35.063 acres Net area 32.38 acres Net density 3.98 units/acre * Ravinia left a couple of small outlots that could be combined with outlots within the proposed application to become lots. This will depend on an agreement to purchase these outlots. The total number of units included in this application relies upon Pulte purchasing these outlots and one previously platted lots from Lennar. If not, then the unit count is lower, but still meets the Met Council required density. 6 The Homes Pulte Homes is known for the extraordinary steps that we take to ensure that we are designing and building homes that meet the needs and desires of home buyers. You can click on this link to learn more about Pulte’s homebuilding process https://www.pulte.com/design/life-tested. We continually reach out to home buyers and Pulte homeowners to get feedback to improve our home designs. It is what we call Life Tested®. Through this intensive process, we have conceived of and incorporated innovative features such as the Pulte Planning Center, the Everyday Entry, Super Laundry, Oversized Pantry, and the Owner’s Retreat. This exhaustive process has played a major part in Pulte’s success in “Building Incredible Places Where People Can Live Their Dreams.” In striving to continually be in lock step with the home buying public, we update the design of our homes frequently. These changes are driven by the desires and tastes of the home buying public through the process described above. Single Family Homes The single-family homes in this location are very attractive two-car garage homes. Below is a listing of the various floor plans and the associated base square footage. It is a fairly new design for the Twin Cities market area. Fifth Avenue 2,426 sf excluding options and basements Boardwalk 2,709 sf excluding options and basements Park Place 2,756 sf excluding options and basements Woodward 2,993 sf excluding options and basements The homes are 35 feet wide, and we have designed the lots to accommodate 10/5 or 7.5/7.5 foot side setbacks. The selling prices of these homes are anticipated to be from $500k to $600k. We believe that this type of single-family home has not been sold in the City of Corcoran. In fact, we believe that the nearest similar homes are in Woodbury and Apple Valley. We have provided graphics and elevations illustrating the attractiveness of these homes. They will comply with architectural standards such as the percentage of each material used and the maximum percentage of garage on the front elevation (55%). Primary materials to be used include vinyl lap siding, vinyl narrow lap siding, vinyl shake siding, vinyl board and batten siding, and cultured stone. Townhomes Previous generations of townhomes offered little variety in both floor plans and exterior variety. We find that this modern and versatile two-story townhome provides much more versatility for our buyers than the previous generation of townhomes. As a comparably affordable home, it appeals to young first-time homebuyers, young families, and singles of all ages. Because a professionally managed homeowner’s association will maintain the yard, remove snow, and maintain the exterior of the buildings, these townhomes also attract empty nest buyers. The below range of options for this townhome were not typically seen in previous generations of townhome floor plans: • 3 bedrooms with options for a 4th • Sunroom with additional upstairs bathroom expansion 7 • Loft Attached you will find photos, elevations, and color palettes of the townhomes. Our overall approach in designing these two-story townhomes was to “individualize and stylize” each unit. The result is individual units which differ in architecture from all other units within the same building and which vary in color scheme. Each home will have a different color palette chosen from those attached to this narrative. The result is that each unit will appear unique and distinct within each building and to a substantial degree within the new community regarding color palette. The townhomes will comply with architectural standards such as 25% of the exterior materials consisting of cultured stone, no individual facades having more than 75% of one material, no buildings having more than 60% of one material. Primary materials to be used include vinyl lap siding, vinyl shake siding, and cultured stone. We believe that this type of versatile townhome is not available to buyers of homes in Corcoran. The homes will range from 1,800 to 2,400 square feet depending on the chosen options. We anticipate these townhomes will sell in the range of the low $400k to $650k with most homes selling in the range of $410k to $470k. Energy Efficiency The homes that Pulte will be constructing will have extremely high energy efficiency. Each home is tested using the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) index, which is the industry standard for measuring energy efficiency. Heating, cooling, and water heating constitute the largest cost of homeownership outside of the mortgage. The U.S. Department of Energy has determined that a typical resale home scores 130 on the HERS Index while a home built to the 2004 International Energy Conservation Code is awarded a rating of 100 (lower is more energy efficient). Pulte Homes measures the HERS score of every new home constructed. The average HERS score for our single-family homes runs in the range of 47 to 53. We are building extremely energy efficient homes that dramatically exceed the International Energy Conservation Code threshold. Deviation From Code Our single family homes will meet all architectural and building requirements. With regard to townhomes we are requesting PUD flexibility only on the garage width and area. City code calls for townhomes to have a minimum garage size of 540 square feet and a minimum garage width of 20 feet. 540 square feet is an extraordinarily large requirement for townhomes or single family homes. We have found over time that our 19’-3” wide, 404 square foot garages are adequate for our home buyers. There are multiple reasons for this: 1. With homeowner association maintained grounds, there is no need for homeowners to own and store a lawn mower, snow blower, “weedwacker,” and many other yard tools and devices. 2. Many townhome buyers are single people with one car. 3. Many townhome buyers are 55+ and are attracted to the homeowners association maintenance. These buyers typically do not have children living with them and therefore have no need for storing bicycles, skateboards, strollers, and many other objects. 8 Our standard design for this townhome is a garage that is 19’-3” wide and 21’-6” deep for a total of 404 square feet. This townhome has been built in many communities across the Twin Cities metropolitan area and experience has shown that it is adequate for this type of home buyer. However, we have made additional efforts to maximize garage space in Walcott Glen. We had our structural engineer evaluate our ability to extend the depth of the garages. We found that we can extend the depth of the garage by one additional foot (22’-6”). This application incorporates the extended garages. In addition, we added shelving to every garage as a standard feature. In total, this brings the garage (419 sf) and garage storage (50 sf) to 469 square feet. This is 65 more square footage than is typically seen for this townhome design. It should be noted that we are exceeding the requirement for the percentage of cultured stone on the exterior of the townhome buildings. The requirement is a minimum of 25%. We will exceed 30% on 6-unit buildings. The percentage will be even higher for 5-unit buildings. Decreasing Housing Affordability Historical Context In recent decades, the Country has experienced a trend of narrower lot widths, deeper homes, and decreased side setbacks. The causes of this long-term trend are complex. A summary of the causes and implications of this trend may be of interest. It was common in the 1950’s to have zoning codes requiring 80-foot-wide lots. Land was cheap. Regulations were minimal. Even modest priced homes could efficiently be placed on such lots. This is no longer true. The primary cause of reduced lot widths and side setbacks is a dramatic and steady increase in development costs and building costs which has made it increasingly difficult to provide homes that are affordable. Simply put, for multiple consecutive decades, housing costs have risen faster than family incomes. Many negative ramifications accompany this trend, such as less access to building wealth, increased societal inequity, decreased job mobility, and other social issues that lie outside the scope of this narrative. There are a variety of complex causes of this trend. There has been a steady increase in society’s expectation for their standard of living. We’ve seen the addition of more generous employment benefits in lieu of increased wages. The Metropolitan Council urban growth boundary has artificially constrained the supply of land available for development. State building code revisions have increases housing costs. And we have experience thousands of small additions to various governmental policies which all add costs to development and housing. We believe that some of the most expensive regulations would be commonly viewed by the public as very valuable and worth the high cost: 1. Storm Water - Since the early to mid-1980’s, we have learned a great deal about how to minimize flooding and to protect the water quality of our lakes and rivers. Many cumulative regulations have arisen to better deal with storm water flooding, water treatment, and sediment control. These regulations continue to evolve and expand. One of the largest increases in housing costs corresponds to the large percentage of land in our new neighborhoods that is now allocated for ponds and storm water treatment (5% to 15%). 9 2. Wetlands - The 1991 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act has resulted in the protection of a valuable natural resource. Although these regulations have been very effective, we must recognize that it has removed a great deal of developable land from our neighborhoods, thereby adding a significant amount of additional costs to homes. 3. Energy Efficiency - Another recent and expensive regulation was implemented state- wide in 2015. This legislation dramatically increased the energy efficiency of new homes. Combined, it could be argued that the above regulations have had a very positive impact on the environment but have also significantly increased the cost of development and home building. There are also many regulations that do not deliver value to the home buyer. And there are many regulations for which it would be productive to have an open discussion about whether they could be altered to make homes affordable to more people yet continue to meet the goals of the various regulators. Every regulation has a cost. A thorough discussion is urgently needed about the relative cost and value of each regulation as we have reached the point of crisis. In response to this steady decrease in housing affordability, our customers have told us that they would prefer to sacrifice some yard space instead of home space. Pulte Homes and other builders across the country have responded to the priorities expressed by the public by creating narrower lots, deeper homes, and oftentimes lesser side setbacks. Zoning codes are being revised to reflect these market realities. There is certainly still a place for 80-foot-wide lots in today’s spectrum of homes, but today they only serve the luxury home sector. We have all observed these corresponding trends over years: smaller lots and less housing affordability. It is not a trend that any of us like to see, and it is a complex issue to fully understand. Another tool to help us more fully understand this issue is the use of data. Measuring Housing Affordability The most accurate measure of housing affordability would account for the different costs of living in various metropolitan areas. A ratio of home price/average household income does just that, and therefore is the most accurate measure of affordability. A ratio of 3.0 or less has historically been considered affordable (http://demographia.com/db-dhi-index.htm). In 1970, all states had a ratio less than 2.5 except Hawaii. As recently as the late 1980’s, the national average was 2.75. In 2019, our national average is 3.9 and our state ratio was 3.4 and has been steadily climbing. Unfortunately, the data also suggests that this trend will continue in the Twin Cities. This assumes that what has been occurring in U.S. coastal metropolitan areas will continue to be a bellwether for the rest of the Country. Housing affordability has steadily gotten worse in coastal areas. The response by the home buying public in coastal areas has been to demand very narrow homes and lots to partially offset the increasing price/income trend and to retain homeownership opportunities for as many people as possible. It is within this broader context that we submit this application. The homes to be built on these lots are not small or inexpensive. The floor plans are tried and true and are popular among the buying public. The trends we are all experiencing related to housing affordability has reached a state of crisis and we are adapting to the changing environment. 10 PUD Zoning PUD Background We recognize that one of the tools used by the City in the past to address the issues described above is PUD zoning. We understand that some Planning Commissioners and some City Councilmembers may not be excited about using PUD’s as a zoning tool. We are not excited about PUD’s either. Ideally, other ordinances would provide the flexibility needed to meet the demands of the market and PUD’s could be eliminated. This would remove a great deal of uncertainty, ambiguity, and frustration from the process. PUD’s began to be commonly used in the Twin Cities in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The most common justification for using PUD zoning was to “cluster” the homes and infrastructure into a smaller area to preserve natural resources such as wetlands, woods/buffers, etc. The primary tool to accomplish this was the use of smaller lots. There were also peripheral benefits such as reduced public infrastructure for cities to perpetually maintain since the infrastructure wasn’t spread out over a larger area. (Incidentally, the three most expensive regulations described in an earlier section of this narrative were all enacted after PUD’s were originated. The original purpose of PUD’s has gradually been diluted.) This particular property requires a PUD due in part to the City’s zoning for this site and the comp plan guidance for this site are for two different densities. If we follow, the City’s zoning code it is impossible to meet the guided densities. If we follow the City’s comp plan, we don’t comply with the zoning code. This discussion ties directly to the earlier discussion regarding decreasing housing affordability and the trend toward smaller lots. PUD Benefits for this Application It can be difficult to balance the goals of a Comprehensive Plan with ordinances and other policies. We have worked hard to create a neighborhood which balances these factors with the market and the property characteristics. The uniqueness of this property lends itself to a PUD approach. Consider the below list of community benefits: 1. Preservation of wetlands 2. Preservation of strategically located tree buffers along CSAH 101 and the west property line. 3. Creation of a wide buffer between homes to the west and the new homes. 4. Planting of conifer buffer trees along the west property line and along Hackamore to buffer views of the townhomes and preserve the “rural” entrance into the City from this intersection. 5. Extraordinarily large home setbacks from CSAH 101, Hackamore, and the west property line. We have set back the townhomes from 101 at a highly unusual 223 feet (requirement is 100 feet w/o buffer and 50 feet with buffer). Similarly, along Hackamore, homes on the west half of the site are set back over 235 feet (requirement is 25 feet). 6. Accommodation of a small public park, if desired and chosen by the City. 7. Strategic design of the entire neighborhood for the expressed purpose of “hiding” the neighborhood from the perimeter, particularly from CSAH 101 and Hackamore. 8. Providing two new types of housing that are in demand. 11 9. Accommodation and potential concurrent construction of a trail along the north side of Hackamore. 10. Development of this property will result in a reasonable financial contribution toward the reconstruction of a regional transportation improvement project (Hackamore). 11. Compliance with the Metropolitan Council density requirements. PUD Benefits to Applicant 1. Deviation from code on issue of garage width and area. Phasing & Schedule Preliminary plat approval Spring 2022 Site development Summer 2022 Model home opens Late 2022 or early 2023 Full build out of homes Late 2025 or early 2026 This submittal includes: • Application • This narrative • Revised survey, site plan, civil engineering, landscape architecture plans • Home elevations, photos, color palettes, etc. • Check for $15,810 o Preliminary Plat - Base Regular/ OSP $400 fee $5,000 escrow o Preliminary Plat – Per Lot Regular/OSP $15 per lot (128 units) $1,920 o PUD Preliminary Development Plan $575 fee $5,000 escrow o 2 Development signs $215 o Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendment $700 fee and $2,000 escrow • Lennar authorization to submit application • Drainage calculations • Draft HOA documents VICINITYMAPNOSCALESRRGNNE E N IG EDESIEN N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000SUSSYRS OER EVRPLAALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYPREPARED FOR:PULTE HOMESNO.BYDATEREVISIONFIELD CREWALLDRAWNCMTCHECKEDDLSDATE9/23/2021USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/ORCONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT ISSTRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'sEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAIDAUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE ANDSHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OFALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTYLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSESRESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE.To: Pulte Homes of Minnesoata LLC, and First American Title Insurance Company:This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum Standard DetailRequirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1 - 5, 7a, 8, 11 and 20of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 9/14/2021.Date of Plat or Map: 10/21/2021________________________________________________________Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147WWW.SATHRE.COMHennepin CountyFILE NO.372905-639CORCORAN,MINNESOTATWP:119-RGE.23-SEC.36DRAFT1DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED(Per Schedule A of the herein referenced Title Commitments)Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANCThat part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of theSouth 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota.Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23.Abstract Property.Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANCThe South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof,Hennepin County, Minnesota.Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANCThe East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S.Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Abstract Property.Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANCThe East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23.Abstract Property.Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANCThe North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Abstract Property.Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeLot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 9: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot B, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.ALTA/NSPS OPTIONAL TABLE A NOTES(The following items reference Table A optional survey responsibilities and specifications)2)Site Address: Parcel 119210 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 219220 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 319200 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 46325 County Road 101, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 519220 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 66345 Larkspur Lane, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 7Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 8Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 9Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 553403)Flood Zone Information: This property appears to lie in Zone X (area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, CommunityPanel No. 27053C0159F, effective date of 11/4/2016.4)Parcel Area Information:Gross AreaR/W Area:Wet Area:Net Area:Parcel 1: 340,265 s.f. ~ 7.811 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 16,871 s.f. ~ 0.387 acres 323,394 s.f ~ 7.424 acresParcel 2: 312,397 s.f. ~ 7.172 acres 14,647 s.f. ~ 0.336 acres 22,779 s.f. ~ 0.523 acres 274,971 s.f. ~ 6.312 acresParcel 3: 349,806 s.f. ~ 8.030 acres 47,522 s.f. ~ 1.091 acres 9,304 s.f. ~ 0.214 acres 292,980 s.f. ~ 6.726 acresParcel 4: 262,355 s.f. ~ 6.023 acres 15,000 s.f. ~ 0.344 acres 23,934 s.f. ~ 0.549 acres 223,421 s.f. ~ 5.129 acresParcel 5: 241,805 s.f. ~ 5.551 acres 15,500 s.f. ~ 0.356 acres 38,697 s.f. ~ 0.888 acres 187,608 s.f. ~ 4.307 acresParcel 6: 14,466 s.f. ~ 0.332 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 1,067 s.f. ~ 0.024 acres 13,399 s.f. ~ 0.308 acresParcel 7: 1,790 s.f. ~ 0.041 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 1,790 s.f. ~ 0.041 acresParcel 8: 4,460 s.f. ~ 0.102 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 4,460 s.f. ~ 0.102 acresParcel 9: 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres` 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acresTotal 1,527,344 s.f. ~ 35.063 acres 92,669 s.f. ~ 2.127 acres 112,652 s.f. ~ 2.586 acres1,322,023 s.f. ~ 30.349 acres*We do not affirmatively insure the quantity of acreage set forth in the description5)Benchmark: Elevations are based on Hennepin County Geodetic Station Name: HACK which has an elevation of: 970.69 feet (NAVD88).6)Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is RSF-2 (Single Family Residential 2) per the City of Corcoran's zoning map dated September 2020. Thesetback, height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation are as follows:Principal Structure Setbacks - Front (County Road 101): 100 feetFront (Hackamore Road): 20 feet Side (Living):10 feet Side (Garage):5 feetRear: 30 feet Height: 35 feetPlease note that the zoning information shown hereon may have been amended through a city process. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the ZoningAdministrator for the current restrictions for this site. All setback information and hardcover data for planning and design must be verified by all parties involved in the designand planning process.We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer.11)Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utilitycompanies, plans provided by client, markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground utilities forthis site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailedinformation is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilitieslocated on the subject property. A Gopher State One Call was submitted for this survey. Please reference Ticket No. 212504938 for a list of utility operators in this area.20) Wetland Delineation: The wetland delineation was performed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company and was flagged summer 2021. Sathre-Bergquist located the wetlandflags on 9/13/2021. Wetland No. 1 has not been field verified.SURVEY REPORTParcel 1:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235472-ANC, dated August 2,2021.1) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c) Item no. 10 - Easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes found in the Warranty Deed recorded August 4, 1992, as Document No. 5950714. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 11-14 are not survey related.Parcel 2:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235496-ANC, dated August 2,2021.2) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 10 - Terms and conditions of that certain Easement recorded September 27, 1999, as Document No. 7187066. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 11-14 are not survey related.Parcel 3:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235501-ANC, dated August 2,2021.3) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-7 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 8 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Highway, Drainage and Utility Easement in favor of the County of Hennepin recorded November 5, 2004, as Document No. 8470913.Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 10-15 are not survey related.Parcel 4:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235481-ANC, dated August 2,2021.4) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 10 - Easement found in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded March 27, 1990, as Document No. 5642600. Shown hereon.d) Item no. 11 - Easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes found in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded August 4, 1992, as Document No. 5950714. Shown hereon.e)Item no. 12 - Terms, conditions and easement of that certain Easement recorded September 27, 1999, as Document No. 7187067. Shown hereon.f)Item no. 13 - Terms and Conditions of that certain Highway Easement recorded December 18, 2002, as Document No. 7892153. Shown hereon.g) Item no.'s 14-17 are not survey related.Parcel 5:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235483-ANC, dated August 2,2021.5) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-7 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 8 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Highway easement recorded December 30, 2002 as Document No. 7901480. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 10-15 are not survey related.6) Observations/Comments noted hereon per field survey such as (but not limited to): access, occupation, and easements and/or servitudes:a) We have shown the right-of-way of Hackamore Road across the South part of the site. We have surveyed it as a right-of-way that extends 33 feet north and south from thecenterline of the traveled road. This is per the historic practice of providing 66 feet of right-of-way on the roads that develop via prescriptive rights. Based upon contemporarycase law this right-of-way could be construed to be more or less width based upon a determination of what area is actually being utilized for highway purposes includingdrainage and possibly slopes.AAAAABBCDFGHE Wetland #9HWL-981.4Pond 14NWL 980.0HWL 981.8FILTRATIONBASIN 21FOREBAYWetland 16NWL~983.5HWL~985.6Wetland 17NWL~973.0HWL~975.8Wetland 18NWL~970.6HWL~972.9Wetland 15NWL~986.0HWL~986.6FILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2NWL 975.2HWL 979.8STORM D & USTORM D & U12345623132OUTLOT A51OUTLOT C123OUTLOT BOUTLOT E4OUTLOT D251341234476543213PARCEL 1PARCEL 2PARCEL 3PARCEL 4PARCEL 5COUNTY ROAD 101HACKAMORE ROADHACKAMORE ROADCOUNTY ROAD 101 AAHGDDDEBFC63RD AVE N.LARKSPURLNLUPINE LNGOLDENROD TRLBearings are based on the Hennepin CountyCoordinate System (NAD 83 - 1986 adj.)VICINITYMAPNOSCALENORTH0SCALE IN FEET80 4040 80160SURVEY LEGENDXXWBSRRGNNE E N IG EDESIEN N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000SUSSYRS OER EVRPLAALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYPREPARED FOR:PULTE HOMESNO. BYDATEREVISIONFIELD CREWALLDRAWNCMTCHECKEDDLSDATE9/23/2021USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/ORCONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT ISSTRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'sEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAIDAUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE ANDSHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OFALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTYLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSESRESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE.To: Pulte Homes of Minnesoata LLC, and First American Title Insurance Company:This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum Standard DetailRequirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1 - 5, 7a, 8, 11 and 20of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 9/14/2021.Date of Plat or Map: 10/21/2021________________________________________________________Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147WWW.SATHRE.COMHennepin CountyFILE NO.372905-639CORCORAN,MINNESOTATWP:119-RGE.23-SEC.36DRAFT2 VICINITYMAPNOSCALESRRGNNE E N IG EDESIEN N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000SUSSYRS OER EVRPLAPRELIMINARY PLATWALCOTT GLENPREPARED FOR:PULTE HOMESNO.BYDATEREVISION1 EMW 1/31/2022 PRELIMINARY PLAT2EMW 3/8/2022 ADDED OUTLOT E FOR TOT LOTFIELD CREWALLDRAWNCMTCHECKEDDLSDATE9/23/2021USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/ORCONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT ISSTRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'sEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAIDAUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE ANDSHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OFALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTYLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSESRESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE.I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 31st day of January, 2022.________________________________________________________Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147schmidt@sathre.comWWW.SATHRE.COMHennepin CountyFILE NO.272905-639CORCORAN,MINNESOTATWP:119-RGE.23-SEC.36DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED(Per Schedule A of the herein referenced Title Commitments)Parcel 1: Title Commitment File No. MN-235501-ANCThat part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 780 feet thereof and which lies North of theSouth 700 feet thereof, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota.Together with easements over the West 30 feet of the East 889.5 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23 and the North 30 feet of the South1025 feet of the East 780 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23.Abstract Property.Parcel 2: Title Commitment File No. MN-235472-ANCThe South 700 feet of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Westerly of the East 874.5 feet thereof,Hennepin County, Minnesota.Parcel 3: Title Commitment File No. MN-235496-ANCThe East 874.5 feet of the South 400 feet of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼) of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian according to the U.S.Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Abstract Property.Parcel 4: Title Commitment File No. MN-235481-ANCThe East 874.5 feet of the North 300 feet of the South 700 feet of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23.Abstract Property.Parcel 5: Title Commitment File No. MN-235483-ANCThe North 310.00 feet of the South 1010.00 feet of East 780.00 feet of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota.Abstract Property.Parcel 6: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeLot 1, Block 3, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 7: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot E, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.Parcel 8: No Title Commitment Provided at this timeOutlot C, RAVINIA 11TH ADDITIONAbstract Property.ALTA/NSPS OPTIONAL TABLE A NOTES(The following items reference Table A optional survey responsibilities and specifications)2)Site Address: Parcel 119210 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 219220 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 319200 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 46325 County Road 101, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 519220 Hackamore Road, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 66345 Larkspur Lane, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 7Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 55340Parcel 8Address Unassigned, Corcoran, MN 553403)Flood Zone Information: This property appears to lie in Zone X (area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, CommunityPanel No. 27053C0159F, effective date of 11/4/2016.4)Parcel Area Information:Gross AreaR/W Area:Wet Area:Net Area:Parcel 1: 340,265 s.f. ~ 7.811 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 16,871 s.f. ~ 0.387 acres 323,394 s.f ~ 7.424 acresParcel 2: 312,397 s.f. ~ 7.172 acres 14,647 s.f. ~ 0.336 acres 22,779 s.f. ~ 0.523 acres 274,971 s.f. ~ 6.312 acresParcel 3: 349,806 s.f. ~ 8.030 acres 47,522 s.f. ~ 1.091 acres 9,304 s.f. ~ 0.214 acres 292,980 s.f. ~ 6.726 acresParcel 4: 262,355 s.f. ~ 6.023 acres 15,000 s.f. ~ 0.344 acres 23,934 s.f. ~ 0.549 acres 223,421 s.f. ~ 5.129 acresParcel 5: 241,805 s.f. ~ 5.551 acres 15,500 s.f. ~ 0.356 acres 38,697 s.f. ~ 0.888 acres 187,608 s.f. ~ 4.307 acresParcel 6: 14,466 s.f. ~ 0.332 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 1,067 s.f. ~ 0.024 acres 13,399 s.f. ~ 0.308 acresParcel 7: 1,790 s.f. ~ 0.041 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 1,790 s.f. ~ 0.041 acresParcel 8: 4,460 s.f. ~ 0.102 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 0 s.f. ~ 0 acres 4,460 s.f. ~ 0.102 acresTotal 1,527,344 s.f. ~ 35.063 acres 92,669 s.f. ~ 2.127 acres 112,652 s.f. ~ 2.586 acres1,322,023 s.f. ~ 30.349 acres*We do not affirmatively insure the quantity of acreage set forth in the description5)Benchmark: Elevations are based on Hennepin County Geodetic Station Name: HACK which has an elevation of: 970.69 feet (NAVD88).6)Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is RSF-2 (Single Family Residential 2) per the City of Corcoran's zoning map dated September 2020. Thesetback, height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation are as follows:Principal Structure Setbacks - Front (County Road 101): 100 feetFront (Hackamore Road): 20 feet Side (Living):10 feet Side (Garage):5 feetRear: 30 feet Height: 35 feetPlease note that the zoning information shown hereon may have been amended through a city process. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the ZoningAdministrator for the current restrictions for this site. All setback information and hardcover data for planning and design must be verified by all parties involved in the designand planning process.We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer.11)Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utilitycompanies, plans provided by client, markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground utilities forthis site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailedinformation is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilitieslocated on the subject property. A Gopher State One Call was submitted for this survey. Please reference Ticket No. 212504938 for a list of utility operators in this area.20) Wetland Delineation: The wetland delineation was performed by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company and was flagged summer 2021. Sathre-Bergquist located the wetlandflags on 9/13/2021. Wetland No. 1 has not been field verified.SURVEY REPORTParcel 1:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235472-ANC, dated August 2,2021.1) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c) Item no. 10 - Easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes found in the Warranty Deed recorded August 4, 1992, as Document No. 5950714. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 11-14 are not survey related.Parcel 2:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235496-ANC, dated August 2,2021.2) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 10 - Terms and conditions of that certain Easement recorded September 27, 1999, as Document No. 7187066. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 11-14 are not survey related.Parcel 3:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235501-ANC, dated August 2,2021.3) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-7 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 8 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Highway, Drainage and Utility Easement in favor of the County of Hennepin recorded November 5, 2004, as Document No. 8470913.Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 10-15 are not survey related.Parcel 4:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235481-ANC, dated August 2,2021.4) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-8 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 10 - Easement found in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded March 27, 1990, as Document No. 5642600. Shown hereon.d) Item no. 11 - Easement for ingress, egress and driveway purposes found in that certain Quit Claim Deed recorded August 4, 1992, as Document No. 5950714. Shown hereon.e)Item no. 12 - Terms, conditions and easement of that certain Easement recorded September 27, 1999, as Document No. 7187067. Shown hereon.f)Item no. 13 - Terms and Conditions of that certain Highway Easement recorded December 18, 2002, as Document No. 7892153. Shown hereon.g) Item no.'s 14-17 are not survey related.Parcel 5:This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company, File No. MN-235483-ANC, dated August 2,2021.5) We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment:a) Item no.'s 1-7 are not survey relatedb) Item no. 8 - Terms and conditions of that certain Driveway Agreement recorded June 30, 1981, as Document No. 4653182. Shown hereon.c)Item no. 9 - Terms and conditions of that certain Highway easement recorded December 30, 2002 as Document No. 7901480. Shown hereon.d) Item no.'s 10-15 are not survey related.6) Observations/Comments noted hereon per field survey such as (but not limited to): access, occupation, and easements and/or servitudes:a) We have shown the right-of-way of Hackamore Road across the South part of the site. We have surveyed it as a right-of-way that extends 33 feet north and south from thecenterline of the traveled road. This is per the historic practice of providing 66 feet of right-of-way on the roads that develop via prescriptive rights. Based upon contemporarycase law this right-of-way could be construed to be more or less width based upon a determination of what area is actually being utilized for highway purposes includingdrainage and possibly slopes.AAAAABBCDFGHE1PREPARED BY PREPARED FORENGINEERSATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAYWAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391PHONE: (952) 476-6000FAX: (952) 476-0104CONTACT : ROBERT S. MOLSTAD, P.E.EMAIL: MOLSTAD@SATHRE.COMDEVELOPERPULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA7500 FLYING CLOUD DRIVEEDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344CONTACT:CHAD ONSGARDPHONE: (952) 229-0723EMAIL: CHAD.ONSGARD@PULTEGROUP.COMDEVELOPMENT DATASingle Family: 50' Lots - 42-43SETBACKSFrontyard Setback: 25'Corner Setback: 25'Sideyard Setback: 5' min/ 15' TotalRearyard Setback: 25'Townhome Units: 83-85 LotsSETBACKSFrontyard Setback: 25'Corner Setback: 25'Sideyard Setback: 20' between unitsRear to side: 25'Rear to rear: 40'Density: 128/32.38 = 3.95 U/ACNote* - 1 single family lot is located inOutlot E & 2 townhome units arelocated in Outlot C of Ravinia 11th Add 52.0091.0074.54104.6455.0055.0086.3050.5052.0052.0052.0052.00100.7182.02BASIN ACCESSFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2NWL 975.2HWL 979.8FILTRATIONBASIN 21FOREBAYPond #1NWL-971HWL-974.5FILTRATION BASIN #2Top Sand-976HWL-980.5Pond #3NWL-983HWL-985.5HACKAMORE ROADCR 101 (BROCKTON LANE)63RD AVE NLAR K S P U R L A N E NLUPINE LANEGOLDENROD TRAIL47.5061.6589.7084.7552.9231.73Basin #1Top Sand-969HWL-971.02' Sand -200 cyFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2HWL 978.462' Sand- xx cy50.5050.50 50.50 50.50 50.50 53.00 53.00 50.50 50.5051.0051.0051.0052.1751.0051.00 75.4350.5550.5350.1750.5057.0656.9660.19 58 . 7 761.4452.0052.0075.8252.00GOLDENROD TRAILLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVELUPINE LANE 63RD AVE N62ND AVE N52.0091.0074.54104.6455.0055.0086.3050.5052.0052.0052.0052.00100.7182.02BASIN ACCESSFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2NWL 975.2HWL 979.8FILTRATIONBASIN 21FOREBAYPond #1NWL-971HWL-974.5FILTRATION BASIN #2Top Sand-976HWL-980.5Pond #3NWL-983HWL-985.5HACKAMORE ROADCR 101 (BROCKTON LANE)63RD AVE NLAR K S P U R L A N E NLUPINE LANEGOLDENROD TRAIL47.5061.6589.7084.7552.9231.73Basin #1Top Sand-969HWL-971.02' Sand -200 cyFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2HWL 978.462' Sand- xx cy50.5050.50 50.50 50.50 50.50 53.00 53.00 50.50 50.5051.0051.0051.0052.1751.0051.00 75.4350.5550.5350.1750.5057.0656.9660.19 58 . 7 761.4452.0052.0075.8252.00GOLDENROD TRAILLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVELUPINE LANE 63RD AVE N62ND AVE N0+001+002+003+004+005+005+840+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0012+534+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0015+99-0+-001+002+003+004+005+006+006+370+001+002+003+003+326+050+001+002+003+004+005+000+001+002+003+004+004+17LPLPHPLPHPLPLPLP LP LP HP LPMH EX17RIM: 1009.0BLD: 14.9'INV: 994.10MH EX16RIM: 990.5BLD: 20.0'INV: 970.49MH EXRIM: 988.8BLD: 8.9'INV: 979.86LPHP LPINV-65INV-65.5INV-66INV- 6 7 INV-67245 LF-6" PERF DTILE6- CO3- 6X6 WYEGOLDENROD TRAILLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVELUPINE LANE 63RD AVE N62ND AVE NINV-74.0CB E 4RIM: 988.4BLD: 13.6'INV: 976.88CBMH E 3RIM: 988.4BLD: 13.7'INV: 976.74FES E 1INV: 976.1STMH E 2RIM: 988.9BLD: 14.5'INV: 976.4592'-18"RCPCL.5 @ 0.37%28'-18 "RCPCL.5 @ 0 .46%WBWBWBWBWBWBPond 14NWL 980.0HWL 981.8FILTRATIONBASIN 21FOREBAYFILTRATIONBASIN 21TOP MEDIA 975.2NWL 975.2HWL 979.812345623132OUTLOT A51OUTLOT C123OUTLOT BOUTLOT E4OUTLOT D251341234476543213108104.OUTLOT C7670.OUTLOT D1211274953.OUTLOT A.OUTLOT B.366710011912012312212412512912812658505152555456576059616869727173747578777986454748466263646566.26.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.371141101091111129810210199.44107105103106113117115116118.22.21.10.9.4.3.5.6.7.8.19.23.16.15.14.13.12.11.2.17.1.18.28.27.24.25.41.40.39.38.43.42.20PARCEL 1PARCEL 2PARCEL 3PARCEL 4PARCEL 58092919089888785848382819793949596.OUTLOT EBearings are based on the Hennepin CountyCoordinate System (NAD 83 - 1986 adj.)VICINITYMAPNOSCALENORTH0SCALE IN FEET80 4040 80160SURVEY LEGENDXXWBSRRGNNE E N IG EDESIEN N SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000SUSSYRS OER EVRPLAPRELIMINARY PLATWALCOTT GLENPREPARED FOR:PULTE HOMESNO. BYDATEREVISION1 EMW 1/31/2022 PRELIMINARY PLAT2EMW 3/8/2022 ADDED OUTLOT E FOR TOT LOTFIELD CREWALLDRAWNCMTCHECKEDDLSDATE9/23/2021USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/ORCONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT ISSTRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'sEXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAIDAUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE ANDSHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OFALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVESTHE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTYLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSESRESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE.I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 31st day of January, 2022.________________________________________________________Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147schmidt@sathre.comWWW.SATHRE.COMHennepin CountyFILE NO.272905-639CORCORAN,MINNESOTATWP:119-RGE.23-SEC.3625 UNIT TOWN HOME LOT AREA6 UNIT TOWN HOME LOT AREATOWN HOME PARCEL AREA EXCEPTIONSParcel 61: 3,179 S.F.Parcel 62: 3,189 S.F.Parcel 102: 3,207 S.F.Parcel 103: 3,223 S.F.DEVELOPMENT DATASingle Family: 50' Lots - 42-43SETBACKSFrontyard Setback: 25'Corner Setback: 25'Sideyard Setback: 5' min/ 15' TotalRearyard Setback: 25'Townhome Units: 83-85 LotsSETBACKSFrontyard Setback: 25'Corner Setback: 25'Sideyard Setback: 20' between unitsRear to side: 25'Rear to rear: 40'Density: 128/32.38 = 3.95 U/ACNote* - 1 single family lot is located inOutlot E & 2 townhome units arelocated in Outlot C of Ravinia 11th Add HACKAMORE ROAD BROCKTON LANE (CSAH 101)LUPINE LAN E G O L D E N R O D T R A I L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161718 19 20 21 22 23 HACK AMORE ROAD SITE Corcoran, Minnesota 52’ from proposed porch to property line 43’ from proposed foundation to property line 62’ from proposed foundation to property line 43 42 41 40 39 38 100’ 50’ from proposed foundation to property line 63RD A V E N U E LARKSPUR LANETotal Units: 129 Single Family: 44 Townhome: 85 Removed Tree Saved Trees Proposed Trees Wetland Wetland Wetland Stormwater Basin Stormwater Basin 37 27 28 29 30 31 3233343536 24 25 26 44 Stormwater Basin Stormwater Basin 62ND AVENUE GOLDEN R O D T R A I L 828480847883778076.57898 00 93 01 90 02 90 02 8 9 0 1 89008 8 9 8 88958891 908891859082888083798277817684 85 81 85 79 85 79 85798580858385 81 78 80 76 80 76 80 76 984 986986 982 978 980 98 0 980 98 2 9 7 6 980 984 982 976 976 986 98 4 988990992994998 996 10001002 1 0 1 0 1010101210141 0 0 4 1010 1 0 0 2 982 980978 98498698898898 4 986988 9709689669649869889889 8 4 990 988 978980 982 9749 7 0 9 6 8984982986988 98 4 982 986 98 2 98 0 982 984984 9829 7 8 980 1002 10 0 6 990992996994974976 980 972980982984986 988 986986 COUNTY ROAD 101HACKAMORE ROAD HACKAMORE ROAD COUNTY ROAD 10163R D A V E N . LAR K S P U R LN LUPINE LN GOL D E N R O D T R L INV-65 INV-65.5 INV- 6 6 INV-67INV-67 245 LF-6" PERF DTILE6- CO3- 6X6 WYE GOLDEN R O D T R A I LLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVEPR I V A T E D R I V ELUPINE LANE63RD AVE N 62ND AVE N INV-74.0 LP LP HP L P HP LP LP LPLPHPLP LPHPLP 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1 9 5 9 - W o o d w a r d 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward195 9 - W o o d w a r d 1959 - Woodwa rd 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woo d w a r d 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodw a r d1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - WoodwardGOLDEN R O D T R A I LLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVEPR I V A T E D R I V ELUPINE LANE63RD AVE N 62ND AVE N Wetland #H1 HWL-976.5 Wetland #H2 HWL-967.8 Wetland #H3 HWL-975.6 Wetland #4 HWL-984.5 67 62 61 56 118 113 112 108 107 102 91 80 103 9897 92 1 10 18 19 20 38 37 24 129 22 21 35 25 86 85 79 74 73 68 43 23 55 50 49 45 125 124 119 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 876 5 4 3 2 26 27 28 29 30 31 3233 34 36 44 39 40 41 421959 - WoodwardCOUNTY ROAD 101HACKAMORE ROAD 3L1JLT/TLM JLT/TLM LANDSCAPE PLAN - THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE PROJECT SITE TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID. - THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF PROPOSED PHYSICAL START DATE AT LEAST 7 DAYS IN ADVANCE. - THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FIELD VERIFICATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ON THE PROJECT SITE WITH GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 1-800-252-1166 PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF EXISTING UTILITIES DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS TO FACILITATE PLANT RELOCATION. - GRADING TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS. - NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. - ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET THE STANDARDS FOUND IN THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN-AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. - ALL CONTAINER MATERIAL TO BE GROWN IN THE CONTAINER A MINIMUM OF SIX (6) MONTHS PRIOR TO PLANTING ON SITE. - DECIDUOUS AND CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL NOT BE STAKED, UNLESS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY. - THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM GUARANTEE OF ONE YEAR ONE TIME REPLACEMENT ON NEW PLANT MATERIALS. GUARANTEE SHALL BE AGREED UPON BY DEVELOPER/BUILDER AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. - THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PLANTS WHICH ARE DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER INSTALLATION. - IF THERE IS A DESCREPANCY BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE PLANT LIST, THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE PLAN WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE. -THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MULCHES AND PLANTING SOIL QUANTITIES TO COMPLETE WORK SHOWN ON THE PLAN. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANT SCHEDULE. - COMMERCIAL GRADE POLY LAWN EDGING SHALL BE INSTALLED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. - THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO THE SITE CAUSED BY THE PLANTING OPERATION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. - THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP PAVEMENTS CLEAN UNSTAINED. ALL PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE ACCESS TO BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. ALL WASTES SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS AND PERMITS GOVERNING THE WORK. - STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES ON-SITE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. KEY COMMON NAME/SCIENTIFIC NAME ROOT*QUANTITY c OFWALCOTT GLEN CORCORAN, MINNESOTA PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA, LLC. 02-11-2022Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2019 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson 00-PLAN-121234-SHEET-LAND.DWG 3-9-2022 3-9-2022 CITY COMMENTS 828480847883778076.57898 00 93 01 90 02 90 02 8 9 0 1 89008 8 9 8 88958891 908891859082888083798277817684 85 81 85 79 85 79 85798580858385 81 78 80 76 80 76 80 76 984 986986 982 978 980 98 0 980 98 2 9 7 6 980 984 982 976 976 986 98 4 988990992994998 996 10001002 1 0 1 0 1010101210141 0 0 4 1010 1 0 0 2 982 980978 98498698898898 4 986988 9709689669649869889889 8 4 990 988 978980 982 9749 7 0 9 6 8984982986988 98 4 982 986 98 2 98 0 982 984984 9829 7 8 980 1002 10 0 6 990992996994974976 980 972980982984986 988 986986 COUNTY ROAD 101HACKAMORE ROAD HACKAMORE ROAD COUNTY ROAD 10163R D A V E N . LAR K S P U R LN LUPINE LN GOL D E N R O D T R L GOLDEN R O D T R A I LLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVEPR I V A T E D R I V ELUPINE LANE63RD AVE N 62ND AVE N LP LP HP L P HP LP LP LPLPHPLP LPHPLP 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1 9 5 9 - W o o d w a r d 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward195 9 - W o o d w a r d 1959 - Woodwa rd 1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woo d w a r d 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodward 1959 - Woodw a r d1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - Woodward1959 - WoodwardGOLDEN R O D T R A I LLARKSPUR LANEPRIVATE DRIVEPR I V A T E D R I V ELUPINE LANE63RD AVE N 62ND AVE N Wetland #H1 HWL-976.5 Wetland #H2 HWL-967.8 Wetland #H3 HWL-975.6 Wetland #4 HWL-984.5 67 62 61 56 118 113 112 108 107 102 91 80 103 9897 92 1 10 18 19 20 38 37 24 129 22 21 35 25 86 85 79 74 73 68 43 23 55 50 49 45 125 124 119 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 9 876 5 4 3 2 26 27 28 29 30 31 3233 34 36 44 39 40 41 421959 - WoodwardCOUNTY ROAD 101HACKAMORE ROAD 3L2JLT/TLM JLT/TLM LANDSCAPE PLAN c OFWALCOTT GLEN CORCORAN, MINNESOTA PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA, LLC. 02-11-2022Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2019 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson 00-PLAN-121234-SHEET-LAND.DWG 3-9-2022 3-9-2022 CITY COMMENTS 3L3JLT/TLM JLT/TLM LANDSCAPE PLAN c OFWALCOTT GLEN CORCORAN, MINNESOTA PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA, LLC. 02-11-2022Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2019 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS 3-9-2022 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson 00-PLAN-121234-SHEET-LAND.DWG 3-9-2022 CITY COMMENTS FOUNDATION LANDSCAPE PLAN BY OTHERS PROVIDED BY PULTE HOMES Color Palette Key 1216 sf477 sf stone (39.2%)500 horizontal siding (41.1%)239 sf shake (19.7%)1212 sf477 sf stone (39.4%)496 horizontal siding (40.9%)239 sf shake (19.7%)2282 sf280 sf stone (12.3%)1634 horizontal siding (71.6%)368 sf shake (16.1%)1613 sf687 sf stone (42.6%)926 horizontal siding (57.4%)0 sf shake (0%)Total Building6323 sf1921 sf stone (30.4%)3556 horizontal siding (56.2%)846 sf shake (13.4%) 533 sq ft47 sq ft stone 9%86 sq ft board and batten 16%400 sq ft horz. lap 75% 479 sq ft156 sq ft stone 33%119 sq ft shake 24%204 sq ft horz. lap 43% HACKAMORE ROAD BROCKTON LANE (CSAH 101)LUPINE LANE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161718 19 20 21 22 23 WALCOTT GLEN Corcoran, Minnesota 43 42 41 40 39 38 63RD A V E N U E LARKSPUR LANEWetland Wetland Wetland Stormwater Basin Stormwater Basin 37 27 28 29 30 31 3233343536 24 25 26 44 Stormwater Basin Stormwater Basin 62ND AVENUE GOLDEN R O D T R A I L SETBACK EXHIBIT Required Setback Proposed Setback 60.43930169.6 100 220 100 60 60 238.8287.947.5 7.5 61.6 7.5 42.5 7.5 84.7 30 52.9 30 220 60 Corcoran City Council –Walcott GlenMay 26, 2022 Agenda 3 The Density Dilemma 2 Pulte Approach 1 Introduction 4 PUD Summary 1. Introduction PulteGroup SELECTIONS WALL •Highly reputable builder •We’re known for our superior floor plans and doing what we promised •Selling homes under two brands: Pulte Homes and Del Webb •You know us from Bellwether and Amberly neighborhoods Pulte Corcoran neighborhoods 2. Pulte Approach SELECTIONS WALL Threading the Needle SELECTIONS WALL •Comp Plan density •Land use •Feedback from City Council •Wetlands •Traffic •Neighbors •Existing trees •Access We believe we found the best plan that balances these factors. City Council Feedback SELECTIONS WALL 1.We moved the townhomes away from Hackamore to better hide them from view 2.We moved the NW sac further east 3.We verified that existing trees to the NW will remain City Council Feedback SELECTIONS WALL 4.We can arrange for construction traffic to come from Hackamore 5.We will evaluate architecture of existing homes in the NE sac to better match existing architecture Massive Open Space SELECTIONS WALL •28.9% open space (tan color) is provided. 5% to 10% is more typical. •Extra buffer along the west property line excluded •Complying with the zoning code as written would encourage less. Tree Preservation SELECTIONS WALL A great deal of thought and time has been dedicated to creating a neighborhood that preserves a large number of trees, particularly along the perimeter. This would not be encouraged by a straight zoning plan. 433 significant trees (shown in green) preserved! Preservation of Buffer -101 SELECTIONS WALL •Preservation of wide and strong wooded buffer along 101 (green = preserved significant trees) Extraordinary Setbacks -101 SELECTIONS WALL Required setback (blue line) = 60’ w/landscaping or 100’ Actual setback = 60’ Required setback (blue line) = 60’ w/landscaping or 100’ Actual setback = 220’ Required setback (blue line) = 60’ w/landscaping or 100’ Actual setback = 170’ Preservation of Buffer -101 SELECTIONS WALL Photos starting at Hackamore and moving north Preservation of Buffer -Hackamore SELECTIONS WALL •Preservation of strong wooded buffer along Hackamore (green = preserved significant trees) Extraordinary Setbacks -Hackamore SELECTIONS WALL Required setback (blue line) = 30’ Actual setback = 39’ to 60’Required setback (blue line) = 30’ Actual setback = 238’ to 287’ Preservation of Buffer -Hackamore SELECTIONS WALL Photos from west to east Preservation of Buffer –West Property Line SELECTIONS WALL •Preservation of strong wooded buffers. •A straight zoning plan would encourage tree removal. Existing offsite trees to be preserved Existing onsite trees to be preserved Extraordinary Setbacks –West Property Line SELECTIONS WALL Required rear setback 30’ (blue line) Actual rear setback 52’ to +100’ Required side setback 7.5’ (blue line) Actual rear setback 42’ to 61’ Preservation of Buffer –West Property Line SELECTIONS WALL Lupine looking north, east, and south Goldenrod looking north, east, and south Additional Buffer –West Property Line SELECTIONS WALL •Additional conifer trees will be strategically placed along the west property line to create a thicker buffer Dark circles are additional conifer trees to be planted These Townhomes aren’t Cheap SELECTIONS WALL •30% to 35% exterior stone (not shown in these photos) •$450k to $650k •Some will exceed the single- family home values 3. The Density Dilemma 2040 Comprehensive Plan SELECTIONS WALL •Low Density Residential (LDR) •Townhomes not listed in LDR •3 to 5 units/acre density Achievable Density for this Unique Property SELECTIONS WALL •All single-family lots = 1.9 unit/acre •3 to 5 units/acre cannot be met w/o townhomes 4. PUD Summary PUD Benefits 1.Intensive effort to preserve existing trees. 433 trees 8” in diameter or greater will be preserved plus many smaller trees. Most are in key, highly visible locations. This approach would not be encouraged w/straight zoning. PUD Benefits 2.Perimeter home setbacks greatly exceed requirements. This provides attractive perimeter views of the neighborhood. PUD Benefits 3.First Corcoran townhome that meets architectural requirements. In fact, it exceeds the 25% stone requirement by providing 30% to 35% stone on the entire exterior. PUD Benefits 5.Preservation of wetlands 6.Massive (+28.9%) open space 7.Planting additional trees to strengthen buffers 8.PUD allows us to be consistent with the City’s Comp Plan density target of 3 to 5 units/ac. Higher density is appropriate at this busy intersection. A straight zoning plan wouldn’t provide as much or any of these desirable outcomes. PUD Benefits 9.Willing to provide an outlot or easement for a City sign on the 101/Hackamore corner. 10.Willing to provide a trail easement along Hackamore. 11.Contribution for Hackamore reconstruction A straight zoning plan wouldn’t provide as much or any of these desirable outcomes. SELECTIONS WALL Questions? 1 Kendra Lindahl, AICP Subject:FW: Feedback on Pulte Walcot Glen Development ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Scott Elmgren <scottelmgren@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 4:59 PM To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: Amanda Elmgren <amandaelmgren@outlook.com> Subject: Feedback on Pulte Walcot Glen Development Hi Natalie, We wanted to submit our feedback/concerns for the proposed development plans Pulte has presented for Walcott Glen as we will not be able to make the meeting next week. Our main concern is the addition of townhomes to an area zoned for single family homes. Besides seeming out of place aesthetically nestled in a neighborhood of single family homes (Ravinia), we are concerned for the increased traffic on that would come along with a more densely populated space vs if the plan was for all single family homes. We’re also concerned for the wetland health as more people means more garbage and pollution for the wetlands in our area. I already clean up garbage weekly that blows into our yard and wetland. Having even more people packed in will just create more pollution and disrupt the eco system more. We acknowledge that this development is going to look out of place no matter what as Pulte is a different builder than Lennar, but the addition of townhomes in the plan amplifies the issue. But if the plan were just for single family homes, it would look less odd and would also cut back on traffic and environmental impacts from being more densely populated. Thanks in advance for taking our concerns into consideration as the city makes its decision. Scott and Amanda Elmgren 6381 Larkspur Ln Corcoran, MN 55340 19006 62nd Ave N Maple Grove MN 55311 ndavis@corcoranmn.gov To Corcoran Planning Committee, I live on the east side of Brockton Lane and the north side of County Road 47. I am writing on behalf of the proposed development by Pulte “Walcott Glen”. Given the already growing traffic concern in this immediate area, I do not support this development as proposed with the town homes. Please consider not allowing town homes in this corner as there are already town homes as well as large apartment complexes in Corcoran just north of this location by the Hyvee. I know that that parcel will be developed, and I accept that fact, but I would really like you all to consider only allowing single family homes which would help minimize congestion in an already congested area. By limiting congestion, it will also help with safety of all the existing homes in this area. There are already many accidents at the intersection of 47/101 so if we limit this to single family homes my guess is we would have at least 40 to 50 less cars that would otherwise occupy those proposed town homes. I would also like to propose that as this development happens that the city of Corcoran does not allow the builder to remove any of the mature trees along Brockton and leave a large section of natural buffer to help preserve the beauty they provide. By doing so it would also provide protection and privacy for the new homeowners and help the builder with selling them faster. Thank you for your consideration and I have faith that the City of Corcoran planning committee will make the right choice not only for my family but the other surrounding families. Thank You Robb Kaiser Page 1 of 10 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 8g. City Council Meeting: May 26, 2022 Prepared By: Natalie Davis McKeown Topic: Sketch Plan for “Pro-Tech Auto Expansion” (PID 26-119-23-11-0020) (City File No. 22-027) Action Required: Direction Review Deadline: July 5, 2022 1. Application Request The applicants, Tom & Dan Gleason of Pro-Tech Auto Repair, request an opportunity to appear before the City Council to solicit informal comments on a sketch plan for an expansion to the existing building at 7591 Commerce Street. The expansion includes adding 3 repair bays and warehouse storage space. The applicants specifically request discussion of the areas where flexibility from City standards is desired: A. A waiver from the fencing requirements for outside storage. B. A variance so that the parking lot can remain unpaved without curb and gutter installed with additional gravel to be installed. C. A variance to allow the use of painted concrete block as a construction material for the expansion. D. Waiver of the requirement to update 25% of the concrete block on the existing façade to an allowed material, which can be addressed as part of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 2. Background Pro-Tech Auto Repair is located on Commerce Street near County Road 10. The business has served the community of Corcoran since it was founded in 1983. Staff located a site plan from 1987 as well as a site plan for an expansion from 2000, both are attached to this report Page 2 of 10 in addition to the Council minutes for the approval in 2000. The existing building is 3,917 square feet. The site includes 25,922 square feet of gravel which makes up the existing parking lot and drive aisles. The site also includes 5 concrete pads around the south, east, and north of the building totaling roughly 1500 square feet. As a second-generation business, the applicants state they are outgrowing their facility. At this time, they hope to expand their space. This will allow them to better service motorhomes, trailers, and medium duty trucks as well as store equipment and parts. The proposed expansion includes additional building space of 5,865 square feet which will house three bays and warehouse space. The applicants hope to expand the gravel parking lot by 1,676 square feet and add an additional concrete pad of 803 square feet on the east side of the proposed expansion. 3. Context Zoning and Land Use Pro-Tech is located on a parcel located within the Light Industrial (I-1) zoning district, and the Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Light Industrial as well. The property is within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Surrounding Properties The properties to the north of this site are located within the Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) Zoning District and are designated for Commercial uses within the 2040 Land Use Map. The properties to the east, west and south are zoned I-1 and guided for Light Industrial. All surrounding properties are within the MUSA. The properties immediately north are City owned properties acquired for sewer and water infrastructure but are not developed at this time. The other surrounding properties contain various industrial uses such as automotive repair, offices, warehouses, and manufacturing. Page 3 of 10 Natural Characteristics of the Site The Comprehensive Plan Natural Resource Inventory map does not identify any natural resources on this site. The Hennepin County Natural Resources Map identifies probable (indicated in the left image as blue) and potential wetlands (indicated as yellow) on the site. The probable wetlands coincide with the stormwater drainage pond on the northern end of the site. 4. Analysis Use Pro-Tech is an auto and truck repair business which is a conditional use in the I-1 district. Since the business pre-dates the Zoning Ordinance, the CUP is assumed. Lot Analysis Lot standards for the I-1 district are as follows: Minimum Standard Minimum Lot Area 1 acre Minimum Lot Width 100 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 200 ft. Minimum Principal Structure Setbacks - Front, Major Roadways 100 ft. - Front, All Other Streets 50 ft. - Side and Rear 20 ft. - Adjacent to Residential 50 ft. Maximum Principal Building Height 45 ft. Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage 70% The existing lot and structure comply with the above district standards as does the proposed expansion. Outside Storage Outside storage on the I-1 district is allowed as a conditional accessory use subject to the following standards: 1. Storage area is blacktop or concrete surfaced unless specifically approved by the City Council. 2. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required for conformity to the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The storage area is screened from public streets and surrounding properties. Page 4 of 10 When screening is required, the Zoning Ordinance calls for the use of landscaping, fencing, and walls to provide a minimum opacity of 80% year-round. Berms can also be used if they do not exceed a 3:1 slope. The screening requirement is meant to protect adjacent property values as unscreened outdoor storage is known to have a negative impact. The applicant’s narrative states they seek a variance from the requirement to fence the parking lot. While the included sketch plan does not specifically identify outdoor storage areas, vehicles can be parked at the property for longer than 72 hours while waiting for parts, repairs, and owner retrieval. When a vehicle is parked for more than 72 hours, it is then considered outdoor storage. Therefore, screening to an 80% opacity would be required in these instances. Technically, a fence is not required if there is enough landscaping to provide the 80% opacity requirement year-round. A fence is usually preferred by landowners as it can be a less expensive way to provide the required opacity. The applicants should define a portion of the site to be specifically used to locate vehicles that will be parked at the site for more than 72 hours. This will allow the applicant and staff to be able to clearly identify where the higher standard of screening is required. Staff believes as least a double row of landscaping and possibly a berm is needed to reach the 80% opacity requirement without a fence, but this will be analyzed further based on revised plans. A variance is only required if the applicants are seeking to deviate from the 80% opacity requirement. If the designated storage area is located on the back end of the site (to the north), then the Council could consider allowing the storage area to remain gravel as part of the CUP without needing a variance. The Engineering Memo confirmed that areas used for storage (rather than primary parking) have been excused from implementing perimeter curbing and a paved surface. Since the applicant is also seeking a waiver from pavement as well as curb and gutter requirements (to be discussed further in the “Parking” section of this report), this may be a potential compromise. Signage Chapter 84 of the City Code limits signage to one 64 sq. ft. freestanding sign per property and wall signate up to 10% of the wall area of the elevation with the primary building entrance. Currently, there are wall signs on the east elevation of the building that look to comply with City Code. The proposed sketch plan does not indicate a desire to add additional signage on the site. Any proposed signage changes must comply with the ordinance standards. Parking Parking and drive aisle setbacks for this property include a 50’ setback from the property line along Commerce Street and a 10’ setback from the side and rear property lines. The sketch plan shows fourteen parking spaces with proof of parking for 9 more Page 5 of 10 spaces along the northeast portion of the site. The parking spaces labeled 6-9 on the southeast portion of the site do not meet the required front parking setback. However, these four spaces look to have been approved with the site plan from 2000 when it appears there was a 20’ front setback for parking. During a site visit on May 17, 2022, staff noted 6 vehicles in this area. The existing drive aisle on the west portion of the site does not meet the 10’ rear setback requirement. The drive aisle goes directly up to the west property line. In fact, the survey indicates that the edge of the gravel encroaches approximately 2 feet west of the property line for a portion of the drive aisle. Both site plans show the drive aisle set back at least 10’ from the west property line and outside of the drainage & utility (D&U) easement. Staff believes it should be required that this error be addressed with the proposed site improvements. Additionally, the drive aisle appears to be roughly 10’ wide which will likely be a concern for Public Safety. Although the Public Safety Team did not have a chance to meet for the review of this sketch plan, they will likely require at least a 20’ width requirement to meet the Fire Code; the exact use of this drive aisle will impact the required width. The applicants calculated 23 required stalls based on the formulas for offices and auto service stations provided in Section 1060.060, Subd. 8. However, the applicants provide in their narrative that there will also be a warehousing component with the expansion. The formula for warehousing is as follows: 5 spaces plus one space for each 2 employees on the largest shift. A minimum of one space per 1,500 square feet of floor area is required. The plans should be revised to reflect the addition of this formula. This parking is needed as staff counted no less than 33 vehicles and three trailers on a site visit completed May 17, 2022. This did not include vehicles in the six existing service bays. The demand for parking on this site is expected to increase with the proposed expansion. The 90-degree angle parking on the site plan meets the minimum dimensional requirements except the drive aisle along the south end of the site is only 19’ where 26’ is required. Additionally, there are five parallel parking spaces shown on the south end of the site. The City Code does not contemplate the use of parallel parking for off-street parking as dimensions are not provided for parking spaces of less than a 45-degree angle. Staff believes a variance is needed to allow the parallel parking shown on the site plan. Looking at standards developed by other cities, the size of the parallel parking Page 6 of 10 spaces looks sufficient, but a 26’ drive aisle is still necessary to accommodate two-way traffic (and the drive aisle at this portion of the site measured at 19’). A 26’ drive aisle seems especially important with the two 90-degree angle parking spaces that are perpendicular to one of the parallel parking spots. The proposed sketch plan and narrative indicate a desire to waive the requirements to upgrade the parking lot to include pavement, concrete curb, and gutter as outlined in Section 1060.060, Subd. 3(A) of the City Code. The sketch plan proposes expansion of the use of gravel for parking areas. Section 1060.060, Subd. 3 (B) specifically prohibits gravel parking lots everywhere in the City except for the Rural Commercial zoning district. Bituminous pavement is required by the City as it does allow for better water quality, protected paved public streets as gravel lots will drag dirt onto public streets, and the use of pavement is also a matter of aesthetics. The curb and gutter requirement is intended to clearly delineate the edge of the pavement areas so that they don't grow over time as well as control runoff from the site to ensure erosion and sediment transportation from paved surfaces does not become an issue. The Engineering Memo explains that this requirement has historically been required of existing businesses at least in the front parking areas, and states this should be incorporated into the site improvements. Additionally, the proof of parking shown on the northeast portion of the site is located on an existing elevation change of 4’ with no additional room beyond the parking due to the drainage swell. The Engineer’s Memo states this parking area will either need to be pulled back or the applicant will need to revise the grading plan to reflect an engineered retaining wall. Landscaping The landscaping plan estimates 10 overstory trees and 33 understory shrubs are required. However, the formula used is incorrect as this should be based on the lineal feet of the site perimeter (as this will reach the greater number as Page 7 of 10 required in the Zoning Ordinance). Staff calculates a required 25 overstory trees and 41 understory shrubs required. The provided landscaping plan provides 10 overstory trees and 35 understory shrubs. The plans should be increased by 15 overstory trees and 6 understory shrubs. In addition to the screening for outdoor storage discussed earlier in this report, parking area with 4 or more stalls must be screened from public streets at a height of 3’ to screen vehicle headlights. This looks to be accomplished with the current landscaping plan, although more detail should be proved for the northeast parking area. Streets & Access The site fronts Commerce Street and has one access point. The site plans shows that the entrance to the site (i.e., curb cut) is currently 33’ at the property line when up to 32’ is allowed. The 1987 site plan shows a 24’ entrance. The 2000 site plan does not appear to dimension the opening, but it looks to be a similar size to the 1987 site plan. The Engineering Memo strongly recommends for concrete aprons to be added to the entrance of the site if the parking lot is updated per City Standard detail plate ST-13. This has been required for other sites when parking lots were upgraded. This is recommended because concrete aprons are more resilient and provide a clear delineation of the private space versus public road. It has been, and continues to be, City practice to require upgrades to existing City standards when site improvements are proposed. Utilities The site is already connected to City sewer and water. The septic system is no longer in use, and the area of the site where it was located has been filled in. A well is shown on the site just south of the building; it is unclear if the well is filled-in and sealed. Stormwater Management and Wetlands The proposed site improvements are under 1-acre in size which avoids triggering a Storm Water Prevention Pollution Plan (SWPPP). Should this change as the plans progress, an MPCA construction permit shall be obtained and a SWPPP prepared. There is a stormwater pond on the north end of the site that lines up with the probable wetland shown on Hennepin County’s Natural Resources Map. The Engineering Memo indicates that if stormwater management is deemed to be necessary for the site that the capacity of the existing pond will need to be evaluated by the applicant. Stormwater Best Management Practices could be necessary, such as a rain garden. It may also be necessary to complete a wetland delineation on this site in order to determine the impacts of the expansion as well as how to best upgrade stormwater management on the site should that be required. Building Standards Page 8 of 10 The existing building relies on painted concrete block which is not an approved building material in Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. Approved materials include: a. Face brick b. Natural or cultured stone c. Decorative or integral colored concrete block d. Cast in place or pre-cast concrete panels e. Wood if the surface is finished and durable such as cedar, redwood, and cypress f. Curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass, and aluminum if factory fabricated and finished with a durable, non-face surface, and the fasteners are corrosion resistant g. Glass curtain wall panels h. Stucco or EIFS i. Fiber cement siding j. Other materials deemed appropriate and approved by the Zoning Administrator The applicants would like feedback from the Council on the likelihood of obtaining a variance to use painted concrete block on the expansion. Additionally, Section 1060.050, Subd. 1(A) of City Code provides that when there is an expansion of an existing structure, the existing façade must be upgraded so that 25% of the existing structure conforms to the exterior building material requirements. The applicants are also asking that this requirement be waived. Unlike the building material for the expansion, the upgrade requirement for the existing building façade can be waived as part of a CUP. However, the upgrade has been enforced in the past with neighboring properties when they came in for expansions. Summary of Discussion Items While there are several items that need to be addressed before the sketch plan moves forward, the Council is asked to specifically provide feedback on the following items identified by the applicant or staff: A. Outdoor storage i. Does the Council agree with staff’s approach to avoid a variance from the screening requirement for outdoor storage? ii. Is the Council open to granting a variance from the 80% opacity rule to screen outdoor storage if desired by the applicant? iii. Is the Council open to allowing outdoor storage areas that utilize gravel if located in the back (north) portion of the site as part of a CUP? B. Parking i. Is the council open to granting a variance to the applicant from the pavement, concrete curb, and gutter requirements outlined in Code for the existing parking lot and proposed expansion of the lot? Page 9 of 10 ii. How does the Council want to handle the drive aisle on the west portion of the site that encroaches into the neighboring property, the 10’ setback, as well as the D&U easement and will likely need to be expanded to at least a 20’ width? iii. Is the Council open to considering a variance to allow parallel parking spaces? iv. Is the Council open to considering a variance for the drive aisle on the southern portion of the site that is only 19’ where 26’ is required? C. Streets and Access i. Is the Council open to a variance for a 33’ curb cut where 32’ is allowed and 24’ was previously approved? ii. Does the Council want to direct staff to waive the use of concrete drive aprons per the City Standards detail plate ST-13? D. Building Standards i. Is the Council willing to grant a variance to allow the expansion of the building to continue with painted concrete block? ii. Is the Council willing to consider a conditional use permit request to waive the 25% façade upgrade requirement? Next Steps If the applicant chooses to proceed with the application, they will need to submit applications for: - Wetland Delineation (likely) - Site Plan - Conditional Use Permit - Variance (dependent on Council feedback) While this is not the formal application, the Council should provide direction to the applicant so that they can decide whether to proceed with a formal application. 5. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss the sketch plan and provides the applicant with informal comments. Any comments given by the City Council are advisory in nature and non-binding. While the comments are non-binding, the applicant will consider the input from the City Council when they prepare their formal submittal. Attachments: 1. Applicant’s Narrative 2. Site Location Map 3. Hennepin County Natural Resources Map 4. Existing Conditions Survey Dated 6/2/2021 Page 10 of 10 5.Sketch Site Plan dated 4/15/2022 6.Approved Site Plan from 1987 7.Approved Site Plan from 2000 with Staff Report 8.City Council Meeting Minutes from Site Plan Approval in 2000 9.City Engineer’s Memo dated 05/18/2022 He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Da te : 5/1 0/20 22 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 1 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 26 119 23 110 02 0 OWN ER N AME: G leas on Pr op er tie s Llc PAR CEL AD DRESS: 7 591 C omme rc e St, C or co ran MN 55 34 0 PAR CEL AR EA: 2.2 7 ac re s, 98,9 43 sq ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $21 5,45 5 SAL E D ATA: 0 9/20 00 SAL E C OD E: Exclu de d Fro m Ra tio Stud ies ASSESSED 20 21 , PAYABLE 202 2 PROPERT Y TYPE: C omme rcial-Pr efer re d H OM ESTEAD : N on -H ome stea d M AR KET VAL UE: $39 3,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $1 8,062 .44 ASSESSED 20 22 , PAYABLE 202 3 PRO PER TY TYPE: C omm erc ial HO MESTEAD: No n-H om es te ad MARKET VALU E: $4 25 ,0 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not s uitable for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 2 Hennepin County N atural Resources Map Date: 5/10/2022 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2022 1 inch = 100 feet Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI Streams FEMA Floodplains - 100 Year A AE FLOODPLAIN AH AO AE FLOODWAY PID: 2611923110020Address: 7591 Commerce St, Corcoran 55340 Owner: Gleason Properties Llc Acres: 2.27 ¯ COMMERCE STREET SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com21-02771SITE PLAN2I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________NFeet02040PRO-TECH AUTO REPAIRCORCORAN, MN8-16-2021 COMMERCE STREETCOMMERCE STREET SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.com21-02772GRADING PLAN2I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by myor under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.__________________________________________________Paul E. OttoLicense #40062 Date:_________________________NFeet020408-16-2021REDUNDANT SILT FENCE DETAILPRO-TECH AUTO REPAIRCORCORAN, MN Page 3 of 4 August 10, 2000 Adoption Prepared By: Dave Gross, Planning Intern City of Corcoran Council Minutes – July 27, 2000 1. The property proposed for subdivision is part of an existing plat with a density of 1 unit per 10 acres. 2. A reasonable use of the property exists. 3. There is no hardship related to the property that is a basis for variance. Discussion: Councilor Gmach noted that he was not in favor of the variance due to the findings of fact and that the density regulations must be upheld in order to maintain consistency of rules. Councilor Lindsley also noted that denying the variance would ensure compliance with the ordinances. She also stated that she was glad that the church had found a suitable alternate site. Mayor Guenthner praised the church’s efforts in attempting to satisfy the community needs. Motion: RT/DL; (Favor: RT – Opposed: GG/DL/KG) – to adopt Resolution 2000-48 “A Resolution to approve a site for ProTech Auto located at 7591 West Commerce Street, PID #26-119-23-11-0020” subject to the following conditions. 1. The parking area south of the building and driveway shall be paved. 2. Verification that the septic system is adequate for the addition. 3. The exterior materials shall match the existing surface. Discussion: Councilor Gmach stated his concern for making pavement required as one of the conditions. “Is it reasonable to require paving for the entire lot?” He also noted that issues of consistency in this matter should be looked at closely and resolved as quickly as possible. He stated that he did not think it would be fair to require conditions such as these simply because the Council has the authority to. Councilor Thomas stated that the Council should reserve the option, as paving parking spaces will increase the overall appearance of the property, and add a lot a community value. Mayor Guenthner noted that condition such as these should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all the elements in support/opposition of the issue at hand. Councilor Lindsley stated the need for policy on these types of issues, but until a policy action is implemented, then the Council should follow the current ordinances. Council directed the Planning Commission “Design Standards” subcommittee to review the issue of commercial parking lot and drive area surface requirements. Motion: GG/DL; (Favor: GG/DL/KG – Opposed: RT) – to adopt Resolution 2000-48 “To approve a Site for ProTech Auto located at 7591 West Commerce Street, PID #26-119-23-11-0020”, as presented, with condition one stricken. Memo To: Kevin Mattson, City of Corcoran From: Kent Torve, PE, City Engineer Steve Hegland, PE Project: Pro-Tech Auto Repair – Site Plan Review Date: May 18, 2022 Exhibits: This Memorandum is based on a review of the following documents by Otto Associates: 1. Site Plan by Otto Associates Dated 8/17/21 2. Grading Plan by Otto Associates Dated 8/17/21 Comments: General: 1. In addition to engineering related comments per these plans, the proposed plans are subject to addition planning, zoning, land-use, and other applicable codes of the City of Corcoran. Grading/Erosion Control/SWPPP 1. The site improvements are identified is less than 1 acre. If for any reason site disturbance for the proposed improvements is greater than 1 acre, an MPCA construction permit shall be obtained and SWPPP shall be prepared for the site. Stormwater management requirements may also be necessary if site improvements are greater than 1 acre but are dependent on the type of improvement. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for following all applicable Elm Creek Watershed regulations. 3. The applicant is showing proof of parking along the NE of the site. There is 4’ of elevation change across this area with no additional room beyond the parking due to the drainage swale. The proof of parking should be pulled back or the applicant should acknowledge on the grading plan that an engineered retaining wall may be required to provide the necessary parking. 4. If stormwater management is necessary for the site, Stormwater BMP’s within the site could be necessary. The use of the existing downtown pond would need to be evaluated by the applicant if this is necessary. May 18, 2022 Protech Auto Repair Kevin Mattson Page 2 of 2 Transportation 1. No improvements are provided to the existing parking lot surfaces. The following improvements are recommended to the parking lot to be in compliance with City Code a. If the parking lot is updated, we would recommend a concrete apron in accordance with City Standard detail ST-13, be added at the entrance in accordance with current practice. b. The City of Corcoran Code 1060.060 Subd 3A requires that “off-street parking areas for non-residential uses have a perimeter of poured, cast in place, concrete curb around the entire parking lot and shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, or other surface as approved by the City Engineer. Such areas shall be graded and drained to dispose of all surface water without damage to adjoining property.” The curb and gutter is intended to clearly delineate the edge of the pavement areas so that they don’t grow over time as well as control runoff from the site to ensure erosion and sediment transportation from paved surfaces does not become an issue. The applicant should include concrete curbing around the edges of the parking area in accordance with the City Code. This requirement has historically been required for the front parking areas and should be incorporated into the plan. c. The north of the building is identified as a gravel surface which we assume to be used for material storage. As this area is not identified for primary parking, this is considered in accordance with the city code and has previously been allowed in similar circumstances to not have perimeter curbing and a paved surface. d. The entrance to the site shall be no greater than 32’ as is the maximum size allowed without a variance. Consistent with the adjacent Napa site plan and others, this shall be measured at the end of the radius points within the site. The current plan shows the travel at approximately 33’ at the property line. 2. The drive aisle along the south of the building is measured at 19’ which is less than the drive aisle width required by city code. End of Comments 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 www.landform.net Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Agenda Item: 8h. TO: Corcoran City Council FROM: Kevin Shay through Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: May 18, 2022 for the May 26, 2022 City Council Meeting RE: Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (city file no. 21-050) REVIEW DEADLINE: N/A 1.Description of Request This is a City-initiated project to update the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines that were originally adopted in 2004. Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan has been updated twice and the modifications are needed to bring the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and current City vision. 2. Background The 2040 Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2019 after nearly three years of public meetings. The Comprehensive Plan is the vision for development in Corcoran. Although it is a physical plan, it is a reflection of the community's social and economic values. These values are translated into the type of land use the City desires and programs regarding economic development, housing, parks, transportation and other key areas. Following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City initiated updates to the Zoning Map and other ordinances as required to bring those documents into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This update is one of those implementation steps. On June 10, 2021, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance establishing a development moratorium in the Northeast District so that the City could complete the water supply plan for the Northeast District and review the development standards for this area. The moratorium is set to expire on June 10, 2022. City staff applied for and was awarded a Hennepin County planning grant for the Northeast District. Upon receipt of the grant, the City website was updated to provide information about the process and encourage public participation. The City held a kick-off meeting with Hennepin County on December 1st to establish expectations, schedule and deliverables. A second meeting with Hennepin County Transportation staff was held on February 16th to review street connections to the County Roads. An online survey was developed and available for public comments from December 17th – January 14th. A total of 166 individuals participated. Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 2 May 26, 2022 On January 11th, a Landowners Open House was held at Hope Community Church to gather feedback from landowners and residents on the proposed changes the plan. Notice was sent to all landowners in the Northeast District and posted on the City website. The meeting was hosted off-site because we expected good turnout and were pleasantly surprised that more than 100 people attended the event. The input gathered at the event suggests that residents desire more retail, restaurant and job opportunities in Corcoran and that they have a strong preference for preserving natural areas where possible and providing landscaping and green infrastructure (including rain gardens, off road trails for bicyclists and pedestrians, parking lot islands) with new development. On March 15th, a second open house was held at Hope Community Church to gather additional feedback from landowners and residents. This meeting was also well attended with an estimated 70 residents and landowners in attendance. 3. Planning Commission Review On April 7th, the Planning Commission discussed the draft plan. Due to the length of the items prior to the draft plan on the agenda, the discussion regarding the plan was limited. Staff asked the Commissioners to provide additional comment regarding the plan prior to the May meeting. Commissioner Brummond provided multiple comments which were attached to the report and included in the draft Northeast District plan. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the draft plan on May 5th. No one was present to speak at the public hearing. The Commissioners provided comments focused around preserving existing residential areas, the desire to prohibit fast food restaurants, the limitations of roads connecting to existing residential neighborhoods, additional buffers protecting existing residential and improved setbacks on County Roads. City staff has not included the Planning Commission recommended changes for the following reasons: 1. The Commission did not want new public streets to connect to existing public streets. However, street connectivity between all neighborhoods is required to ensure public safety and to disperse traffic throughout the road network. In fact, the existing neighborhoods were designed with stub streets planning for these future connections. 2. Prohibiting fast food restaurants would restrict coffee shops, fast casual dining and other users that staff believes are appropriate uses in the NE district for areas guided as commercial. While the Commission did not specifically discuss drive-throughs, those operations are a conditional use which allows the City to address any potential issues with the use. 3. The ordinance requires a 100 foot setback from major roads (primarily county roads), but allows a land owner to reduce the setback by adding additional landscaping adjacent to the street. Removing the allowance to reduce setbacks along County roads would limit the ability of existing smaller adjacent parcels from developing without requesting a variance or and would limit the amount of usable space for the property. Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 3 May 26, 2022 After the Planning Commission packet went out, the City received a letter from Continental Properties with a number of suggestions for revisions to the NE district. After review staff has included the following changes to the draft based on the comments: • Fiber reinforced cement board siding has been added as a class 1 material. • A description of a bee lawn has been added to the text. 4. Analysis The purpose of the Northeast District Plan update is not to amend the Comprehensive Plan, but rather to amend the Northeast District Plan to reflect the land use designations adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and the adopted zoning map. While no changes are proposed to the land use or zoning, the update is intended to establish new standards for development in this area. The work plan established with the City grant application is to develop a new plan informed by stakeholder input that includes: • A new concept plan for the Northeast District • Planned infrastructure improvements • Creation of a street hierarchy • Identification of parks, trails and plazas • A walkable destinations map • Updated landscaping and screening requirements • Gateway signage standards • Architectural standards – styles, placement, massing, height, etc. • Parking location and design standards • Utility installation standards • Strategies for sustainability, resiliency and preservation of natural resources such as encouraging the use of green infrastructure for stormwater management The draft Northeast district plan takes the feedback received from meetings with County staff, city council and residents to create a document which accomplishes the goals of the Hennepin County grant and takes the feedback into account. The draft northeast district plan includes the following sections. 1. District Overview and Purpose a. Purpose Statement This outlines the purpose of the district. It clarifies that these standards are adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance and are in addition to the basic standards established by the applicable zoning district. The purpose of the standards is to establish standards for commercial, industrial, mixed use and business campus districts for job-creating businesses that will expand the tax base and provide jobs or provide retail/service Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 4 May 26, 2022 businesses to support Corcoran residents. The standards will ensure quality site design that will result in attractive business and residential development. b. Application This describes that the content of the plan is in addition to those standards found in the Zoning Ordinance. c. Sustainable Design Framework This section describes Corcoran’s definition of sustainability and how sustainable design should be incorporated into new development. Sustainable development meets the public demand and requires the responsible use of resources without unacceptable social, economic, or environmental consequences. This goal was adopted in Chapter 9 (Water Resources) of the Comprehensive Plan and provides a good starting point for development of the Northeast District plan standards. d. Utility Plan (sanitary sewer, water, stormwater) The plan has been updated with the most current infrastructure planning information. It is our hope that the water supply planning effort that is being discussed concurrently with this plan can be updated in time for the final document preparation in April. e. Street Hierarchy and Standards We have developed a master street plan based off the version presented at the Open House and created design standards like those adopted as part of the Southeast District Plan. At the Planning Commission meeting on April 7th, Chair Jacobs stated his concerns about a planned future street east of Duffney Drive where he lives. Another resident of Duffney Drive spoke about his concerns about the location of the planned street and intersection with County Road 30. Staff noted that intersections were generally spaced according to County spacing guidelines after discussion with County transportation staff. Following the Planning Commission staff met and agree to shift the planned intersection to the east, which would provide more separation from Duffney Drive in the future if the street is constructed. The map in the document reflects this change. The final street alignment will be determined when development is proposed and the ultimate intersection will be permitted by Hennepin County. 2. Design Principles a. Allowable Uses Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 5 May 26, 2022 This section lists businesses that are currently permitted in the zoning districts but are proposed to be prohibited in the Northeast District. They include contractors operations, equipment rental, lumberyards/building material sales, mini storage/self storage buildings, motor vehicle, boat or equipment repair or sales. • The City Council may wish to provide feedback to staff on any types of businesses that they do not believe are appropriate in this district given the gateway location and the desire to expand the tax base and create jobs. b. Buildings – Architecture, Placement, Massing, Height, Uses The City has adopted building standards in Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, we are recommending additional standards for the Northeast District to reflect the public feedback. c. Parking – Location, Standards (including bike racks and EV charging stations), landscaping and stormwater standards Parking lot standards have been developed to require landscape islands, stormwater design, lighting design and maintenance plans that ensure long term sustainability. We are trying to avoid the creation of large heat islands by requiring parking lot islands to break up the pavement areas and encourage new businesses to minimize hard surfaces. d. Electric Vehicles As part of the sustainable design strategies incorporated into the document we have included a requirement to provide a small amount of electric vehicle parking for sites with more than 100 parking spaces. The update adds definitions to Section 1020 of the Zoning Ordinance related to electric vehicles. These definitions are included in the draft ordinance. e. Screening – trash, loading areas, mechanical equipment, etc. These standards are established in Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance and the northeast district adds to these standards in an attempt to preserve the rural character. f. Landscape standards – plant materials, hardscape, etc. The landscape standards included in the plan encourage the use of native plant materials to reduce the need for irrigation. A preferred tree list has been included that developers will be required to utilize when selecting species for development in the Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 6 May 26, 2022 northeast district. A suggestion from Parks Commissioner Sharon Meister was made to remove the following trees from the list: • Scots Pine • Freemans Maple • Tilia Cordata • Amur Corktree • Weeping Willow • New Horizon Elm Staff is not recommending a change to the preferred tree list because the intent is for the list to encompass a large number of trees to provide numerous options for tree species. We have reviewed the list with our registered landscape architect and believe that these trees can be appropriately located and be a positive addition to the landscape. However, the Planning Commission could modify the list if desired. g. Parks and Trails The Parks and Trails plan was adopted as part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and no significant changes are included. However, since the plan was adopted, the City has acquired a portion of the City parks and trails in the Bellwether development so the plan exhibit has been updated to reflect current conditions. h. Stormwater Management Stormwater management is part of every development and the plan has included strategies and examples to provide environmentally responsible and visually pleasing stormwater management solutions within the northeast district. 5. Summary The Northeast District Plan is adopted as part of the City Code as an appendix to the Zoning Ordinance. As part of the ordinance amendment to adopt the plan, staff has included the removal of the existing Northeast Design Guidelines and the inclusion of definitions related to the new terminology used in the Northeast District Plan. 6. Action Move to approve the following: 1. Ordinance 2022-459 approving an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 2. Resolution 2022-61 approving findings of fact 3. Summary Ordinance 2022-460 Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines (21-050) 7 May 26, 2022 Attachments 1. Ordinance 2022-459 approving an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 2. Resolution 2022-61 approving findings of fact 3. Summary Ordinance 2022-460 4. Public Comments City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-459 Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 10 (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE (CITY FILE 21-050) THE CITY OF CORCORAN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Title 10, Appendix A (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by removing the existing strikethrough text as follows: NORTHEAST DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES At one of the major entrances to the City of Corcoran, the Northeast District Plan establishes a gateway to the community that reflects the City’s rural character. The plan offers opportunities for expanded tax base, jobs and services by taking advantage of Maple Grove’s nearby higher density development. The primary entry into the Northeast District is County Road 30, where a mixed-use PUD (planned unit development) will combine a mix of low and medium density residential with mixed-use commercial, including neighborhood retail, service retail, commercial and office uses. The edge of the district along County Road 101 is planned primarily for high quality business parks, with some destination commercial or retail uses closer to the County Road 30 intersection. General Site Development • The commercial area along County Road 101 should be designed as high quality business parks, with appropriate office, commercial and light industrial uses. • Retail uses should be limited to the commercial area indicated near the County Road 101 and 30 intersection or included within the County Road 30 mixed-use PUD area. • Within the PUD, residential development should provide for life-cycle housing for empty nesters, retirees, and first-time home buyers with a range of housing types (condominiums, townhouses, and single-family attached) and densities. Streets, Trails, Parks and Public Amenities • County Road 30 is a major entry point into the City of Corcoran, which warrants a unique design treatment as it meets County Road 101; this intersection should be developed as a “gateway” with significant landscaped open space and appropriate entry elements; the design should express the unique character of Corcoran. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 2 • County Road 30 from County Road 116 to County Road 101 should be developed as a green corridor with landscaped setback, center boulevard and other enhancements that will express a sense of entry while maintaining an open, rural road character. • Enhancements at the intersection of County Roads 116 and 30 should be designed similar to major County Road 116 intersections in the downtown and southeast district. • The County Road 116 rural greenway should continue north through this district, with trail connections to new civic or community spaces as well as retail or destination uses within the PUD. • Mixed commercial-retail within the PUD should be designed around public or common areas that are linked by trails or sidewalks. The design should also include sidewalks and trails to connect neighborhood retail and public spaces to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. • Mixed-use and new residential development within the PUD should include a designated neighborhood park in addition to natural open space (woods, wetlands, meadows, etc.). • The planned extension of County Road 117 to County Road101 should be planned and designed in a way that is sensitive to existing residential uses in that area. Direct access for new developments should be limited on County Roads 101, 116 and 30. Future plans for access on these roads should balance traffic demand and future development. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 3 SECTION 2. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Section 1020.020 “Definitions” of Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding the new underlined text as follows: CHARGING LEVELS – means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric vehicle’s battery is recharged. The terms 1, 2, and DC are the most common charging levels, and include the following specifications: 1. Level 1 is considered slow charging with 120v outlets. 2. Level 2 is considered medium charging with 240v outlets, charging head and cord hard- wired to the circuit. 3. DC is considered fast or rapid charging. Voltage is greater than 240 ELECTRIC VEHICLE – a vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the electrical grid, or an off-grid source, that is stored on board for motive purposes. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS – means a public or private parking space that is served by battery charging station equipment that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle. URBAN GARDEN - Small-scale gardens located in an urban area that produce food crops. City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 4 SECTION 3. Amendment of the City Code. The text of Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Corcoran City Code is hereby amended by adding a new Appendix C as follows: See Attachment A SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 26th day of May 2022. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota 5 Attachment A Appendix C (Corcoran Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines) Appendix C Corcoran Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines Adopted May XX, 2022 DRAFT May18-22 for review only 2 | District Overview and Purpose | 3 Purpose Statement Application Sustainable Design Framework Municipal Water and Sewer Street Hierarchy Design Principles | 9 Allowable Uses Buildings Parking Electric Vehicles Screening Landscape Standards Parks, Trails and Open Space Stormwater Management Implementation | 22 Table of Contents DRAFT May18-22 for review only 3 | Overview 1. To allow for master planning and development of housing, employment and service uses through the use of unified developments that share common architectural schemes, landscape and site plan design, connected streets and pedestrian routes and green spaces. 2. To incentivize the development of high-quality industrial and business developments that will provide employment opportunities in Corcoran. 3. To encourage the use of sustainable, environmentally-friendly building and site development techniques. 4. To develop a transportation system that supports vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. 5. To promote master planned developments to increase the efficiency of infrastructure design. 6. To implement the land use goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Purpose Statement The purpose of the Northeast District Design Guidelines is to establish standards for this gateway to Corcoran. The area offers opportunities for expanded tax base, jobs and retail and service businesses to serve the existing and new residents in Corcoran and surrounding communities. The newly constructed Dayton Interchange and the planned Highway 610 extension provide a once in a lifetime opportunity to develop the area in a manner the reflects the unique Corcoran character as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The standards will ensure quality site design that will result in attractive business and residential development. The district will allow development consistent with the primary zoning district and provide additional regulations and performance standards to accomplish the following goals: District Overview and Purpose 01 Application The format and content are specifically tailored for use as a supplement to the Zoning Ordinance. All provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply to parcels in the Northeast District and these standards shall be in addition to those provisions. Where there is a conflict, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Sustainable Design Framework The vision of the Northeast Design Standards is to encourage sustainable development that meets the public demand and requires the responsible use of resources without unacceptable social, economic, or environmental consequences. These guidelines are intended to provide a framework for meeting that goal. DRAFT May18-22 for review only 4 | Overview Northeast District Land Use Map DRAFT May18-22 for review only 5 | Overview Northeast District Analysis Map DRAFT May18-22 for review only 6 | Overview Municipal Water and Sewer The municipal sanitary sewer to serve the Northeast District exists and will generally flow north to the lift station at near County Road 101 at the City’s north border. Water is currently provided to the Northeast District from the City of Maple Grove. This agreement limits the area that can be served and requires landowners to pay the both the Maple Grove and Corcoran water fees. Developing a Corcoran water system has been a priority for the City. The City has identified a well and treatment site on County Road 116 north of Hunter Road. The City is in the planning stage, but hopes to have the well operational by 2023. However, at least one more well will be needed to serve the Northeast area and search area have been identified as shown on the Water Supply map. The well alone is insufficient and the City has been actively searching for a water tower site. The preferred tower site is also shown on the Water Supply map. Street Hierarchy The Dayton Interchange at County Road 101/Brockton Lane and I-94 and the planned extension of Highway 610 will increase traffic along the County Road 101 and County Road 30 corridors and providing opportunities for new businesses in the Northeast District. The Comprehensive Plan identified the major roadways as County Road 116, County Road 101, County Road 30, Stieg Road and Schutte Road. The street hierarchy map has been refined as part of this plan to provide more detail about street classifications and design. The City will continue to work with Hennepin County to ensure that as improvements are made to the County streets in the Northeast District they reflect the City’s goals. As improvements are made to these streets, emphasis should be placed on enhancements to traffic controls, pedestrian connections, lighting, gateway elements and landscaping at key intersections. As part of this vision, the City will look for opportunities to provide grade-separated pedestrian crossings in addition to the at-grade crossings. The County road corridors should be designed with green boulevards on both sides and a landscaped median similar to the County Road 30 design. Final design will be coordinated with the County. The existing road network should be maintained as a continuous network, with new connections where needed. Cul-de-sacs should be avoided in favor of connecting streets that will facilitate resilient multi-modal routes within the district. The Northeast District has three main types of streets which are described and illustrated on the following pages. Each serves a specific function toward the creation of a well-connected and economically viable district. The developer shall be responsible for construction of all streetscape improvements along adjacent streets. These improvements include all hardscape, landscape and site amenities, such as trails, sidewalks, benches, bike racks, street trees and plantings. Water Search Area DRAFT May18-22 for review only 7 | Overview Northeast District Street Classification Map DRAFT May18-22 for review only 8 | Overview County Road 30 (Mid-Block) County Road 101 & 116 (Mid-Block) Collector Street Local Street DRAFT May18-22 for review only 9 | Design Principles Design Principles The Northeast District should continue to provide a mix of residential, commercial, office and industrial uses as described in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Design Guidelines for the district shall be the same as those described in the Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district in which the development is located and these Design Standards will provide an additional layer of standards. Allowable Uses The Northeast District is a gateway to Corcoran and the uses in non-residential areas should be developed with new light industrial, office-industrial, high tech and professional services businesses to provide quality employment and wages. To accomplish this goal, land uses in the Northeast District shall be all uses allowed in the underlying zoning district, except that the following uses are prohibited in the Northeast District, except those uses legally established prior to May 26, 2022: 1. Contractors operations 2. Equipment rental 3. Lumber yards/building material sales. 4. Mini Storage/Self Storage Facilities. 5. Motor Vehicle, Boat or Equipment Repair 6. Motor Vehicle, Boat or Equipment Sales Buildings New development site and building design should provide a visual cue that you are in Corcoran. The use of regional building materials and native plants for all development is encouraged. Development in this district should be thoughtfully designed to reflect Corcoran’s rural character. The use of natural materials (such wood siding, brick and stone) is encouraged. Buildings shall have architectural details, features and patterns to provide visual interest. All structures shall comply with the building standards in Section 1060.050 and the additional standards in this section. Single family detached homes shall comply with the Design Requirements in Section 1040.040, Subd. 8. Attached homes shall comply with the Design Requirements in Section 1040.060, Subd. 9. 02 DRAFT May18-22 for review only 10 | Design Principles Properties in the Mixed Use, Commercial, Business Park and Industrial district shall comply with the following: Exterior surface materials of buildings shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the adopted building code and the manufacturer’s specifications and shall be subject to the regulations listed below. Products listed as “integral colored” shall continue its surface color consistently through the depth of the product as opposed to being colored, painted, or stained on the surface only. Materials shall be divided into class I, class II and class III categories as follows: Class I. The following materials are considered class 1 materials as specified: 1. Brick 2. Marble, granite, or other natural stone 3. Integral colored cast stone (the stone is colored consistently through) 4. Textured cement stucco 5. Architectural wall cladding (Nichiha, Equitone and similar brands) Material must be through colored and at least 5/8 inches thick 6. Fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch 7. Copper 8. Porcelain 9. Glass 10. Other materials of similar quality as approved by the City Council. Class II. The following materials are considered class II materials as specified: 1. Exposed aggregate concrete panels 2. Burnished concrete block 3. Integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block 4. Cast-in-place concrete 5. Insulated exterior wall panels (E.I.F.S., Drivit and similar brands) 6. Prefinished metal 7. Integral colored concrete panels other than smooth finished 8. Other materials of similar quality as approved by the City Council. Class I materials: Single Family Class I materials: Multifamily Apartment Class I materials: Commercial / Mixed Use Class I materials: Industrial DRAFT May18-22 for review only 11 | Design Principles Class III. The following materials are considered class III materials as specified: 1. Unpainted or surface painted concrete block (scored or unscored) 2. Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels 3. Unfinished or surface painted metal 4. Smooth finished concrete panels 5. Brick, stone, or integral colored material which has been painted 6. Other materials of similar quality as approved by the City Council. At least 60% of each building face visible from off the site must be of class I materials except as permitted by this section: Not more than 10% of each building face visible from off the site may be of class III materials. Portions of buildings not visible from off the site may be constructed of greater percentages of class II or class III materials if the structure otherwise conforms to all city ordinances. The mixture of building materials must be compatible and integrated. Large uninterrupted building elevations are not permitted. No wall may have an uninterrupted length exceeding 80 feet without including at least two of the following: changes in plane; changes in color, texture, materials or masonry pattern; windows; or an equivalent element that breaks up the elevation. For buildings in the I-1 districts which are not located on a County Road or adjacent to or across from any residentially zoned property, class I materials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 percent provided that the architecture and site plan shall meet the following minimum criteria to be considered superior quality: 1. The exposed height of the building wall shall not exceed 15 feet. 2. The number of required plant units shall be increased by 20 percent or the size of 20 percent of the overstory trees installed shall be increased to 3 1/2 caliper inches. 3. A minimum of ten percent of the building facade must be windows or glass spandrels. Class I materials: Commercial Class I materials: Office / Warehouse Class I materials: Commercial / Office Class I materials: Commercial / Retail DRAFT May18-22 for review only 12 | Design Principles Parking Parking shall comply with the standards in Section 1060.060 of the ordinance and the additional standards in this section. Bicycle racks shall be provided for all multi-family and non-residential uses and may be placed near the entrance if a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian access to the building entrance is maintained. Bicycle parking may occupy a maximum of two required parking stalls without requiring additional parking. Parking bays shall have landscape islands at each end of the parking bay, and bays in excess of 15 spaces in length shall be divided by intermediate islands. Trees shall be located in the islands to shade the parking lot to reduce the heat island effect. These landscape islands shall provide at least 360 square feet of area for planting trees, shrubs and/or groundcovers. Intermediate landscape islands shall provide at least 180 square feet of planting area. A landscape buffer shall be provided between all parking areas and the public sidewalk. The buffer shall consist of shade trees, low shrubs or perennial flowers and a decorative fence or masonry wall. Plantings and parking lot screen walls or fences shall be no less than three feet and no more than four feet in height to allow views into and out of parking areas Parking lots should incorporate stormwater management into the parking lot as an amenity feature. These features when appropriately designed can be used to meet the landscape island requirements. Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be so arranged as to reflect glare away from adjoining property, adjacent residential uses and public rights-of-way and be in compliance with Section 1060.040 of this Chapter. Bike Parking Parking Lot Islands Parking Lot Screening Parking Lot Stormwater DRAFT May18-22 for review only 13 | Design Principles Electric Vehicles All new developments are encouraged to provide parking and services for electric vehicles, to expedite the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle infrastructure. All new parking structures or lots with at least 100 parking spaces shall provide services for electric vehicles (EV) as required below. 1. Multiple-family residential land uses shall have 5% of required parking as Level 1 stations for resident parking, and one Level 2 station for guest parking. At least one handicapped accessible parking space shall have access to an electric vehicle charging station (EVCS). 2. Non-residential land uses with parking spaces available for use by the general public shall have at least 1% of required parking as Level 2 stations with a minimum of two spaces served by Level 2 charging, with at least one station adjacent to an accessible parking space. In non-residential zoned districts, DC charging stations may be installed to satisfy the EVCS requirements described above on a one-for-one basis. Notwithstanding the requirements above, all new or reconstructed motor fuel stations as defined in Section 36-142(d)(20) shall be required to install at least one additional Level 2 charging station. A DC charging station may be installed to meet this requirement. In addition to the number of required EVCSs, the following accommodations shall be required for the anticipated future growth in market demand for electric vehicles: 1. Multiple-Family Residential Land Uses: all new, expanded and reconstructed parking areas shall provide the electrical capacity necessary to accommodate the future hardwire installation of Level 2 EVCSs for a minimum of 10% of required parking spaces. 2. Non-Residential Land Uses: all new, expanded and reconstructed parking areas shall provide the electrical capacity necessary to accommodate the future hardwire installation of Level 2 or DC EVCSs for a minimum of 10% of required parking spaces. These requirements may be revised upward or downward by the City Council as part of an application for a conditional use permit or planned unit development based on verifiable information pertaining to parking. DRAFT May18-22 for review only 14 | Design Principles Screening In addition to the standards in Section 1060.030, the additional standards in this section are intended to preserve the rural character of Corcoran while allowing new development to bring jobs and homes to the community. No loading docks or overhead doors shall be visible from County Roads or residential property. The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following methods: 1. A parapet wall. 2. A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the building. 3. The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky, whichever is most effective. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground tanks); refuse and recycling handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A chain link fence with slats shall not be accepted as screening. All utility services shall be underground except as provided in Section 1060 of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscape Standards Site design and landscaping should be designed to work with the existing topography of the area, wooded areas, wetlands and natural viewsheds and corridors. Sustainability, in terms of the landscape, is the ability of plant species to maintain healthy growth with minimal human assistance. Selecting plants suited for a specific condition is key to their sustainability over time. Benefits of utilizing sustainable plant species include less time spent towards maintenance, less maintenance costs, and positive contributions to the larger environment and its ability to perpetuate itself. Development landscaping shall include a full complement of overstory, ornamental and evergreen trees, shrubbery and ground covers which are hardy and appropriate for the locations in which they are planted and provide year-long color and interest. Development in the Northeast District shall select from the following list of preferred trees and shrubs that suit unique conditions and environments found in Corcoran. The following plant materials shall be used in the Northeast District: Coniferous Trees Common Name Abies balsamea Balsam Fir* Abies concolor White Fir Abies fraseri Fraser Fir Juniperus virginiana Red Cedar* Larix laricina American Larch* Picea abies Norway Spruce Picea glauca White Spruce* Picea glauca var. densata Black Hills Spruce Picea mariana Black Spruce* Pinus banksiana Jack Pine* Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine Pinus resinosa Red Pine (Norway Pine)* Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine* Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Pinus cembra Swiss Pine Conservation Development Site Design and Street Trees Site Design and Landscaping DRAFT May18-22 for review only 15 | Design Principles Deciduous Trees Common Name Acer x freemanii Freeman’s Maple Acer x freemanii ‘Sienna’Sienna Glen Maple Acer rubrum Red Maple* Acer saccharum Sugar Maple* Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye Betula nigra 'Cully’ Heritage River Birch* Betula papyrifera Paper Birch* Betula populifolia Grey Birch Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory* Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory* Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry* Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis Thornless Cockspur Hawthorne Crataegus mollis Downy Hawthorne Gingko biloba Gingko (male only) Gleditsia tricanthos var. inermis Thornless Honeylocust* Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffeetree (male only), ‘Espresso’, ‘Stately Manor’ Malus spp.Crabapple, ‘Adams’, ‘Calocarpa’, ‘David’, ‘Donald Wyman’, ‘Dolgo’, ‘Harvest Gold’, ‘Prairifire’, ‘Professor Sprenger’ Malus ioensis Prairie Crabapple Ostrya virginiana Ironwood* Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen* Prunus serotina Black Cherry* Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Quecus alba White Oak* Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak* Quercus elllipsoidalis Northern Pin Oak* Quercus macrocarpa Burr Oak* Quercus rubra Red Oak* Quercus velutina Black Oak* Salix alba Weeping Willow Salix nigra Black Willow* Sorbus americana American Mountain Ash Sorbus decora Showy Mountain Ash* Tilia americana American Linden (Basswood)* Tilia americana ‘Redmond’Redmond Linden Tilia cordata Littleleaf Linden, ‘Morden’, ‘Shamrock’, ‘Norlin’ Ulmus americana ‘Princeton’Princeton Elm* Ulmus americana ‘Valley Forge’Valley Forge Elm* Ulmus pumila ‘New Horizon’New Horizon Elm Ulmus wilsoniana ‘Patriot’Patriot Elm DRAFT May18-22 for review only 16 | Design Principles Shrubs Common Name Alnus incana Speckled Alder Amelanchier alnifolia ‘Regent’Regent Serviceberry Amelanchier interior Inland Serviceberry Aronia melanocarpa var. elata Glossy Black Chokeberry* Betula pumila Bog Birch* Cornus alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood* Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood* Cornus racemose Gray Dogwood* Cornus rugosa Round-leaved Dogwood Cornus sericea Red-osier Dogwood* Corylus americana American Hazelnut* Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut* Crataegus chrysocarpa Fireberry Hawthorn* Crataegus macrosperma Large-seeded Hawthorn Diervilla lonicera Bush Honeysuckle* Euonymus atropurpureus Easter Wahoo Ilex verticillata Winterberry Juniperus communis Common Juniper* Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark* Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant* Ribes aureum Golden Currant Ribes cynosbati Prickly Gooseberry Ribes missouriense Missouri Gooseberry Rosa blanda Smooth Wild Rose* Salix bebbiana Bebb’s Willow* Salix discolor Pussy Willow* Salix pedicellaris Bog Willow Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry* Sambucus racemose Red-berried Elder* Staphylea trifolia Bladdernut Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry* Symphoricarpos occidentalis Wolfberry* Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood Viburnum Viburnum lentago Nannyberry* Viburnum opulus var. Americanum American Highbush Cranberry Celtis occidentalis / Hackberry Tree Picea mariana / Black Spruce Pinus resinosa / Red Pine Quercus alba / White Oak Prunus virginiana / Chokecherry Tree Gleditsia tricanthos / Honeylocust * indicates plant native to Minnesota DRAFT May18-22 for review only 17 | Design Principles Ground Cover All land area not occupied by buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks or other hard surfaces shall be sodded or mulched and landscaped with approved ground cover, flowers, shrubbery and trees. Traditional lawns of mown Kentucky bluegrass are the most common groundcover in the area and have their place in new development. However, they are not conducive to sustainable practices desired in the Northeast District as they require large amounts of water and maintenance. Alternatives to traditional lawns are available and appropriate as part of a sustainable environment. Native prairie plantings and bee lawns, which includes low growing flowers and turf grasses, are viable options to traditional lawns in Corcoran. The plant composition of these alternatives are widely varied and can be tailored to suit specific conditions and aesthetics. The overriding concept is that they provide habitat, food and shelter for a variety of animals, birds and insects and they are sustainable with minimal intervention. An overlooked benefit of prairies and bee lawns is that they visually change with the seasons, providing a changing view throughout the year. The City supports the use of these ground covers when a maintenance plan is provided for review and approval by the City. Landscaping Options The City encourages the use of special design features such as xeriscaping; rain gardens/bioretention systems; landscaping with native species; green rooftops; heat island reduction; and aesthetic design. All new development must include two of the following alternative landscape options: Xeriscaping: Xeriscaping is landscaping which uses plants that have low water requirements, making them able to withstand extended periods of drought. Xeriscaping landscapes are a conscious attempt to develop plantings which are compatible with the environment and make a conscious effort to minimize use of water. Rain Gardens/Bioretention Systems: Bioretention systems can be described as shallow, landscaped depressions commonly located in parking lot islands or within areas that receive stormwater runoff. For credit under this section, the rain garden/bioretention system shall be above ground and a visible part of the green or landscaped area. Stormwater flows into the bioretention area, ponds on the surface, and gradually infiltrates into the soil bed. Pollutants are removed by a number of processes including absorption, filtration, volatilization, ion exchange, and decomposition. Filtered runoff can either be allowed to infiltrate into the surrounding soil (functioning as an infiltration basin or rainwater garden), or discharged to the storm sewer Pollinator Lawn Pollinator Lawn Xeriscape Rain Garden / Bioretention DRAFT May18-22 for review only 18 | Design Principles or directly to receiving waters (functioning like a surface filter). The use of under drain systems are discouraged unless where infiltration is prohibited by the water resources management plan. Runoff from larger storms is generally diverted past the area to the storm drainage system. Landscaping With Native Species: Fifty percent (50%) of the plantings used in the landscape plan shall be native plant communities as identified in the landscaping tables provided above. The landscape plan shall be approved by City staff. Green Rooftops: Green rooftops are veneers of living vegetation installed atop buildings, from small garages to large industrial structures. Green rooftops help manage stormwater by mimicking a variety of hydrologic processes normally associated with open space. Plants capture rainwater on their foliage and absorb it in their root zone, encouraging evapotranspiration and preventing much stormwater from ever entering runoff streams. What water does leave the roof is slowed and kept cooler, a benefit for downstream water bodies. Green roofs are especially effective in controlling intense, short duration storms and have been shown to reduce cumulative annual runoff by fifty percent (50%) in temperate climates. Aesthetic Design: Sites shall be designed to include three (3) of the following: public art, fountains, plazas, perennial beds, entrance landscaping, or other amenities reviewed and approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC). Gateway signage is desired at the County Road 101 at the north Corcoran border and at the County Road 101/ County Road 30 intersection. Developers of property at those intersections will work with the City install this gateway signage and related landscaping. This would satisfy part of the aesthetic design requirement for those properties. Alternative Energy: New developments may use solar energy systems (SES) to support the development. Building Integrated SES and Building or Roof Mounted SES is encouraged in the Northeast District as allowed by Section 1060.110 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the Ordinance does not currently allow wind energy conversion systems (WECS) as an allowed use, the City shall consider the amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow small WECS as an accessory use. Native Species Green Roof Entry Design Alternative Energy DRAFT May18-22 for review only 19 | Design Principles Urban Garden: Small-scale urban gardens that produce food crops are found to have beneficial outcomes for food security, the environment, physical health, and social wellbeing. For this section, an accessory outdoor garden can satisfy one of the landscaping options as long as it serves as a community garden, institutional garden, and or a chef’s/ kitchen garden for a business such as a restaurant. Raised garden beds may be utilized. Additionally, an accessible urban garden can be part of the design for public plazas or private open spaces as required elsewhere in this Appendix. Parks, Trails and Open Space There are two existing parks in the northeast district: the Community Park and the Neighborhood Park. Both parks were dedicated to the City as part of the Bellwether development and are open to the public. Parking lots are planned in the northwest corner of the neighborhood park and southwest corner of the open space park. The Parks and Trails plan adopted in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan anticipates a second Neighborhood Park south of County Road 30. The City parks will connect to homes and businesses through a series of trails and sidewalks. On- and off-road trails are planned along all County roads. The City plans a number of on- and off-road trails throughout the district. Additionally, Three Rivers Park District plans for the Diamond Lake Regional trail to connect through the Northeast District, including a connection to the Community Park. As development occurs open space will transition to homes and businesses. In order to ensure that opportunities to gather outside, maintain viewsheds and retain same of the character of Corcoran’s rural beginnings, all non-residential properties with principal buildings in excess of 100,000 square feet of floor area shall be required to have a public plaza space. The public plaza space shall include benches, bike racks trash receptacles, lighting fixtures and other amenities to create a welcoming space for tenants of the building and members of the public. These plaza spaces should be visible from the public street and maintained by the landowner. Multi-family residential developments shall be required to provide landscaped private open space for their residents. This open space shall be designed and landscaped for outdoor recreation. Urban Garden Trails Landscaping Public Space Design DRAFT May18-22 for review only 20 | Design Principles Walkable Destinations Map A five or ten minute walk - 1/4 or 1/2 mile radius - is a common measure of walkability. DRAFT May18-22 for review only 21 | Design Principles Stormwater Management Water features and drainage systems are essential components of development in the district. A mix of ponds, fountains and other water elements provide focal amenities and year round activities within the framework of an environmentally responsible, visually pleasing strategy to manage stormwater. Each site has a responsibility to utilize best management practices (BMP) to pretreat run-off, reduce erosion and encourage infiltration in compliance with City and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission standards. Water and landscape should be utilized within multipurpose areas that accommodate both active and passive recreational use – the following examples illustrate only a few of many possibilities: 1. Pervious pavements, underground storage and other creative techniques should be used to meet BMP standards, particularly in areas where more density is expected. 2. Stormwater reuse 3. Green architecture, expressed through green roofs, gray water recycling and other techniques should be included to reduce the impact of new development on stormwater systems. 4. Water feature design should include both formal elements (such as reflecting pools or fountains) and natural/informal forms (such as ponds or fountains) and should explore creative ways to integrate wet landscapes with active, urban spaces. The City and the watershed are working to reduce chloride in our water system. All multifamily and non- residential developments are required to provide a Chloride Management Plan. Studies (see MCES publication regarding Nine Mile Creek, March 2021) show that chloride (or salt) found in surface waters and shallow aquifers has been increasing over the past 20 years. One source of the river’s chloride is the salt applied to our streets, parking lots, driveways and sidewalks in the winter and results in peak chloride values between March and May. Due to the chloride’s toxicity on the environment, watershed organizations and regulatory agencies have increased their focus on the urban sources and some watersheds are implementing practices for reducing salt applications. Rush Creek (the receiving water for the Northeast District) is at high risk for being impaired according to State’s data base. Chloride Management Plans will be regulated under the City’s MS 4 permit. Silva Cells Pervious Pavers Underground Stormwater Green Roof DRAFT May18-22 for review only 22 | Implementation The design guidelines will be administered by staff as part of the development review process. Staff will incorporate design review to ensure compliance with the design guidelines as a standard step in the development review process. Implementation03 DRAFT May18-22 for review only 23 | Implementation This page left intentionally blank DRAFT May18-22 for review only City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-61 Page 1 of 2 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 10 (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE (CITY FILE 21-050) WHEREAS, the City of Corcoran obtained a Hennepin County grant to develop new design standards for the Northeast District; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to add Appendix C to the Zoning Ordinance (Corcoran Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines); and WHEREAS, staff prepared an ordinance amendment to remove the existing Northeast District Design Guidelines from Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance and add a new Appendix C; and WHEREAS, staff prepared an ordinance amendment to add definitions related to the Northeast District Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendment would be consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendment would be consistent with other City Code standards and City policies; and WHEREAS, the amendments reflect the Council’s vision for development of this area and provides guidance to landowners and developers; and WHEREAS, the City sough public input through an online survey and two open houses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed text amendments at a duly called Public Hearing and recommends approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORCORAN, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the amendment based upon the finding that the proposed amendments would be consistent with State law and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and compatible with other provisions of the City Code. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2022-61 Page 2 of 2 Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ___________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director City of Corcoran May 26, 2022 County of Hennepin State of Minnesota Page 1 of 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2022-460 Motion By: Seconded By: CITY OF CORCORAN SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2022-459 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF TITLE X (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE RELATED TO THE NORTHEAST DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES (CITY FILE 21-050) Title X of the City Code of the City of Corcoran, Minnesota, is hereby amended to repeal a portion of Appendix A and include a new Appendix C to the Zoning Ordinance of the Corcoran City Code. A printed copy of the entire amendment is available for inspection by any person at City Hall during the City Clerk’s regular office hours. VOTING AYE VOTING NAY McKee, Tom McKee, Tom Bottema, Jon Bottema, Jon Nichols, Jeremy Nichols, Jeremy Schultz, Alan Schultz, Alan Vehrenkamp, Dean Vehrenkamp, Dean Whereupon, said Resolution is hereby declared adopted on this 26th day of May 2022. ________________________________ Tom McKee - Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ City Seal Jessica Beise – Administrative Services Director From:Natalie Davis To:Corinne Brummond Cc:Kendra Lindahl, AICP Subject:RE: Comments/Questions on NE District Design guidelines draft Date:Tuesday, April 26, 2022 2:38:41 PM Good afternoon Commissioner Brummond, I think you are right that an urban garden could potentially satisfy the plaza requirement and the landscaping requirement as long as the remaining elements under the landscaping option for Aesthetic Design are also satisfied (aesthetic design must include at least three from the following list: public art, fountains, plazas, perennial beds, entrance landscaping, or another amenity). I think what I will do is make the urban garden landscaping option specific to the production of food so that a well landscaped plaza doesn’t satisfy both landscaping options. What do you think about adding the following verbiage under Landscaping Options: Urban Garden Small-scale urban gardens that produce food crops are found to have beneficial outcomes for food security, the environment, physical health, and social wellbeing. For this section, an accessory outdoor garden can satisfy one of the landscaping options as long as it serves as a community garden, institutional garden, and or a chef's/kitchen garden for a business such as a restaurant. Raised garden beds may be utilized. Additionally, an accessible urban garden can be part of the design for public plazas or private open spaces as required elsewhere in this Appendix. Thank you, Natalie Davis McKeown Planner Direct: 763-338-9288 Work Cell: 763-258-4272 City Hall: 763-420-2288 From: Corinne Brummond <corinne.brummond@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 8:19 AM To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: Kendra Lindahl Forwarding <klindahl@landform.net> Subject: Re: Comments/Questions on NE District Design guidelines draft Natalie & Kendra, Thank you for this in-depth reply. I appreciate the time that it took to put the reply together and can imagine the discussion that occurred before as well; to understand the reasoning behind the responses to each issue has been beneficial to me. It gives me a chance to view the issue from a different perspective, one with greater scope, than merely the singular issue, particularly on the private open space guidelines and housing type issues. When referencing urban farming in the NE district, the term culinary garden or chef's garden more specifically or accurately defines what I was considering. I was imagining gardens where some of the herbs and produce for the restaurant were produced and harvested on site, like the first picture you included. If the garden is open to the public/private I don't see why it couldn't also qualify as a plaza space. A follow up question, would this then fulfill the two landscaped options required under the NE district design draft? I would lean towards yes, because the other environmental factor at work is reduction of the transportation of food supply. Additionally, I would think that the second picture of a gardened plaza would be permissible as a landscape option; however, it seems this represents a well landscaped plaza and shouldn't count as both landscape requirements. I hope that I have given you the additional information you were hoping for in order to complete the draft on the intended timeline. If there is something I have neglected, please feel free to email or call me. Thank you, Corinne Brummond corinne.brummond@hotmail.com 612.207.8581 From: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 1:41 PM To: Corinne Brummond <corinne.brummond@hotmail.com> Cc: Kendra Lindahl Forwarding <klindahl@landform.net> Subject: RE: Comments/Questions on NE District Design guidelines draft Good afternoon Commissioner Brummond, As promised, here is a more in-depth to your email below. County Road 30 and Maple Grove Kendra and I believe there is value in referencing the Maple Grove median on County Road 30 as an example because sometimes people don’t understand what is meant by landscaped medians and boulevards. We will see if there is another way to get the point across. Please note, we don’t believe that referencing Maple Grove as an example at all limits the City in terms of the final design since this will be coordinated with the County at the time of the road upgrade. Urban farming as an allowable use I think it would be helpful to define what you mean by urban farming as it can mean different things. Urban farming (along with urban agriculture and urban gardening) can be used as an umbrella term that encompasses a diverse mix of food production activities, including fisheries, forestry, animal husbandry, aquaculture, beekeeping, and horticulture. It is common for people to use the term urban farming interchangeably with community gardening, homesteading, or subsistence farming. How are you using the term in relation to what you hope to see in the Northeast District? Are you hoping to see commercial urban farms as an allowed use? Would this include the keeping of farm animals? Are you hoping to see community gardens as an allowed and/or accessory use? Are you hoping to encourage institutional gardens (e.g., a restaurant cultivates some of its food on-site)? Does something else come to mind when you say urban farming? Keep in mind that the Northeast District is poised to be a key job creation area in the City. While there is anecdotal evidence that some forms of urban agriculture can drive economic development, the data available is inconclusive and the case studies behind this claim usually focus on densely populated and impoverished urban areas with food security concerns. It is unclear how this finding would apply to a developing area within an existing, affluent agricultural community. Additionally, I am not finding strong evidence that urban commercial farms or community gardens would create more jobs than a self-storage facility (and some of the reasoning behind removing self-storage facilities specifically in this district is the lack of jobs it creates compared to the amount of acreage used). I believe most community gardens could qualify as a recreational facility of a non-commercial nature, which is an allowed primary use in all of our residential districts. I believe it makes sense to allow accessory community gardens and institutional gardens as well. One could make the argument that gardening/small-scale food production as an accessory use qualifies as an “incidental and customary use” which is allowed in all of our urban districts. A similar argument could be made that accessory urban gardens could qualify as a “play and recreation facilities, including swimming pools and tennis courts, for the use of the property owner and guests” which is an allowed accessory use in our urban residential districts. Finally, I believe gardens could qualify as an amenity/related use that can be located within the plazas that will be required of significant developments within the NE District. If we want to change our zoning code to specifically call out community and institutional gardens as an accessory and/or primary use, then I believe we need to address this as a separate code issue that would apply to our urban districts across Corcoran. As mentioned in my previous email, commercial greenhouses and nurseries are an conditional use in the C-2 District found within the NE District. They are also a conditional use in the C-1 District. They are also allowed as an IUP in RSF-1 and RSF-2. Farmers markets are an allowed interim use in the General Mixed-Use District. The draft plan specifically calls out bee lawns as an approved alternative to traditional lawns on p. 17. Tailoring housing options for families rather than senior housing We are concerned about the legality of limiting housing types. Developers are sensitive to market demand and would be tentative of moving forward with a development if a market study shows there is saturation of a specific housing type within a given area. It is current practice for staff to encourage developers to complete market studies that confirm market demand, particularly when specialty housing (such as senior and assisted living developments) is proposed. The typo on p. 13 is noted and will be corrected. Urban garden as a landscaping option I like your idea of adding an accessory urban garden as something that can count towards the landscaping options provided. To be clear, when you are saying urban garden, are you being specific to food production (like what is pictured below although it wouldn’t necessarily need to be this big)? Or would any garden/vegetation qualify (such as what is pictured below)? And are you okay with this also counting towards the required plaza if accessible to the public and/or private open space if accessible to residents? Native plantings We understand your desire to require more than 50% native plantings, but we agree that 50% is a good starting point. The preferred landscaping list primarily includes trees and shrubs that are native to the area, so we believe developments can easily exceed the 50% metric. However, it is also important to keep in mind that flexibility may be needed in the long-term implementation of the plan as our climate continues to shift. Public plaza maintenance The intent is for the public plazas to be maintained by the landowner. The language will be clarified to reflect this expectation. Private open space guidelines Due to the variety and scale of anticipated developments, staff is hesitant to be prescriptive of private open space as sometimes strict requirements become arbitrary and limit creativity or options. We want to avoid establishing standards that may quickly prove to be unrealistic and require developers to request a variance or PUD flexibility. Each development is different, so we believe it is more important to clarify the expectation for private open space that offers outdoor recreation within the development, and we are confident the design can be effectively managed through the review process. I believe this (in combination with my earlier email) addresses your comments and questions. Please let me know if there is anything I didn’t touch on. If you are able to get back to me on Monday/Tuesday regarding your thoughts on the urban gardening piece, I would greatly appreciate your insight as I am actively researching verbiage to include in the plan, and the revised draft needs to be ready by the end of next week. Feel free to give me a call as well as email. Have a great weekend, Natalie Davis McKeown Planner Direct: 763-338-9288 Work Cell: 763-258-4272 City Hall: 763-420-2288 From: Corinne Brummond <corinne.brummond@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 10:18 PM To: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: Comments/Questions on NE District Design guidelines draft Natalie, Since we didn't get the opportunity to discuss the draft for the NE district design guidelines last commission meeting, we were asked to submit our comments and questions to you via email but the end of this week. The following are my comments and questions. I do not anticipate any immediate feedback but look forward to the chance to discuss at our next meeting. Page 6 under Street Hierarchy: "The County road corridors should be designed with green boulevards on both sides and a landscaped median similar to the County Road 30 design in Maple Grove." Comments/Questions: I find the landscaped medians and boulevards in Maple Grove on County RD 30 to be quite sparse. Why limit ourselves if we could achieve a higher standard and appearance by setting a standard not dependent on Maple Grove? In other words, is it better to set a standard of planting or appearance that is conducive to our desired look and remove the comparison to Maple Grove? Page 9 under Allowable uses: Comments: I agree with the elimination of mini storage/self-storage facilities in this area and I can see the overall plan is to have the industrial businesses in the southern part of Corcoran. I don't currently have concerns with this section. Question: Would urban farming/greenhouses be an allowable use in this district? Page 9 & 10 under Buildings: Comments/Questions: I understand this section is related to the building materials, but I see multistory family apartments as an example. I am wondering if there is any limitation to the total number of residential dwellings specific to senior citizens. With two going in in the SE District and the Bellwether community already in the NE district, it seems there are a number of options already so will the multistory apartments added in the NE district be aimed at families? Page 12 under Parking: Comments: I am excited about the idea of avoiding heat islands and I believe that the design standards being outlined are a great step towards better balance. Page 13 under Electric Vehicles: Comments: I believe there is a typo in the second section. The sentence reads, "Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections a above..." I thought perhaps there was a section a but it doesn't appear so. Page 17-18 under Landscaping Options: Comments/Questions: If a restaurant or coffee shop were to open in this area and they had an urban garden where they grew some of their own food would be meet one of the two required landscaping options? I wish we could require a higher percentage of native plants in the landscaping, but I think 50% is a good metric. Under the Aesthetic Design section, who is the Development Review Committee? If at the time that development requests come in and this becomes a popular option for one of the two required landscaping options, is there a plan to limit the number of public art pieces or fountains, etc or is it up to the discretion of the DRC? Page 19 under Parks, Trails, and Open Space: Comments/Questions: Who is responsible for maintaining the public plazas should a building be required to build one because of their size? The last two sentences reference the multi-family developments and the requirements for landscaped private open space for the residents. The guidelines regarding this open space are very slim. Is there are reason more guidelines aren't given? Would that be part of the PUD process? Overall, I want to commend those who have worked hard to create this draft. It is evident that there is a desire to preserve natural elements and achieve a more harmonious existence between development and nature. This is a value that residents of Corcoran esteem. Thank you, Corinne Brummond From:Tom Anderson To:sharonmeister@embarqmail.com; Jessica Christensenbuck Cc:Kendra Lindahl, AICP; Natalie Davis Subject:Re: NE district plan Date:Wednesday, April 27, 2022 11:06:04 AM Attachments:image004.png image005.png image002.png image003.png image008.png image006.png image007.png Tree and Shrub List for NE design 4-25-22.docx Good afternoon, Jessica reminded me that I should finish this project. I had started it shortly after she sent it out, but as often happens I got distracted by the next shiny thing... This is actually a very nice list of trees and shrubs. Sharon identified some of her least favorites and I have made comments on some of the trees and shrubs on the list. The truth is I like most of them and most will grow in Corcoran. As I have been thinking about this, I am figuring out that my priority is not so much which varieties of trees we are favoring but being clear about what we are trying to do with those trees: Most of Corcoran was originally a Maple-Basswood Forest with some areas of prairie and some Oak Woodland and Brushland (Oak Savana). The plants found naturally in those habitats can provide a good basis for plantings. (See the links found below) Trees and shrubs which are in the care of an individual should be under the control of that induvial (plant what you want in your own yard). Trees and plantings which shield and restrict the view of properties should feature trees and shrubs which might have originally been found in the area when possible. Plantings which are designed to shield structures from view from the road should include a variety of trees and shrubs which present a 'natural' and pleasing vista to those driving by. Ideally the depth of the plantings should be large enough to minimize the presence of the structure being screened. Evergreens alone are not a good solution. There were not many evergreens in Corcoran when Europeans arrived, and we should take that as a clue. It is my experience and observation that the 'sweet spot' for evergreens in Corcoran is very small. When they are planted, they don't amount to much, as they grow, they are attractive, and they do offer some year-round privacy but after a few years they lose their bottom branches, or their health declines and they are not attractive and not very functional. In most of Corcoran and area left untended will turn back into woods. You need to keep the buckthorn and other invasives under control, but it will fill in. Proper site preparation, good plant stock, careful planting and good care in the first few years are essential to the development of healthy trees and shrubs. A bad example: I drive to and from our house using CR 30. just west of Mama G's there is a wetland and at the north side of the wetland is the Bellwether development. All that blocks the view of the homes from my view is a single line of spruce trees. They look out of place, and they do not improve the view and in 10 years it will not be much better. That single row of evergreens does not give much protection to the residents from the noise of CR30 and Mama G's nor do they provide much shade from a very open southern exposure. A better example: Old Sturbridge Road runs east from CO 116. There are three homes facing CR116, but they are set well back from the road, pretty well screened by trees and the rest of the community is deeper in the woods, invisible from the road. 16e6ce1617f4b780a59324f79c301a6f.jpg (2833×1507) (pinimg.com) MHs39 Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest factsheet (state.mn.us) I hope this is helpful. Tom Tom Anderson tompand@yahoo.com 763 428-2559 On Wednesday, April 6, 2022, 02:58:18 PM CDT, Jessica Christensenbuck <jchristensenbuck@corcoranmn.gov> wrote: Tom and Sharon – See below and attached. Kendra is curious if you guys have any feedback on the list of trees that they compiled from the list you guys had passed along to me. The list appears to begin on page 14. Thanks! From: Kendra Lindahl, AICP <KLindahl@landform.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 11:55 AM To: Jessica Christensenbuck <jchristensenbuck@corcoranmn.gov> Cc: Natalie Davis <ndavis@corcoranmn.gov> Subject: NE district plan Jessica, We expanded the park preferred tree list that you gave me from Tom and Sharon when we did the NE district. I worked with my registered landscape architects to develop this list. The public hearing is scheduled for May 5th but I would appreciate any feedback from Tom prior to that meeting if he has concerns. Kendra Lindahl, AICP LANDFORM, Principal Planner Direct: 612-638-0225 NOTICE: All drawings, specifications, instruments of service, and other documents, data, or information of any kind, including all electronic files and data ("Documents") attached to or "linked" from this E-mail are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. andinternational copyright laws. Your use of the Documents is controlled and restricted by the terms of use. By downloading the attached files or by accessing the links contained in this E-mail message, you are agreeing to the terms of use. COPYRIGHT © 1994-2020 LANDFORM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NOTICE: indicated professional registrations are for the state in which the office is located; to obtain information about other state licenses, please contact Human Resources at 612-252-9070. Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest - MHs39 | Minnesota DNR (state.mn.us) Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest - MHs39 Rich mesic hardwood forests on loamy soils derived from calcareous till or wind-deposited silt over bedrock. Pre... Continental 592 Fund LLC – Brockton and County Road 30 Corcoran, MN Continental Properties Company, Inc. ∙ W134 N8675 Executive Parkway, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 May 5, 2022 Via: Email ( Kendra Lindahl, AICP Consulting Planner with LANDFORM City of Corcoran 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 RE: Corcoran Northeast District Plan and Design Guidelines Comments Dear Ms. Lindahl, Continental 592 Fund LLC, Continental, has reviewed the March 18, 2022 version of the Corcoran NE District Plan (1st Draft). Below is a list of comments referenced by section. Land use map comments on page 4 must be modified to show the following The commercial land use north of the corner of Brockton and County Line Road be no deeper than the depth of the existing Mama G’s lot or 200 feet. This will allow for the future roadway connection to be behind the commercial uses and not split the uses in half per the current map. Potential commercial uses in this area will likely be restaurants, or small shop spaces that would not require more than 200 feet of depth. Any larger size commercial parcel would likely be a grocer that can more appropriately be located on a larger commercial lot depth at the corner of Stieg and Brockton Lane north of the Immanuel United Methodist Church. High density residential should be located behind the commercial space mentioned above which can then blend into medium or mixed residential to the Boundary of the Business Park use to the east. This land use change would provide a buffer to the Low Density to the north and provide a land use intensity transition between the Business Park Land Use to the West, the Commercial to the East and County Road 30 South. Building Design Principles on Pages 9‐11 Fiber‐reinforced cement board siding and composite stone products should also be considered as a class 1 material for all housing types. These materials are already considered as standard high‐quality class 1 materials in many Minneapolis metropolitan areas. Parking Design Principles on page 12 An intermediate landscape islands need to be a minimum of 160 square feet which equates to a typical 9’ x 18’ parking stall and not 180 square feet as proposed. Electric Vehicle Design Principles on Page 13 Electric Vehicle Charging (EVC) stations requirements must be no greater than non‐residential demand for multifamily projects or all EVC requirements must be eliminated. o Current affordability of electric cars limits their usability by all income levels, thereby placing undo burden on housing attainability for renters at or below the HUD Average Median Income (AMI). o The total number of vehicles registered in Minnesota are 7.4 million only 19,000 of which are registered as electric. So currently electric vehicles are only 1% of the Statewide vehicular number. It’s an undue burden to require multifamily housing to provide 5% EVC’s in their required parking if only 1% of the entire state has electric vehicles. Continental 592 Fund LLC – Brockton and County Road 30 Corcoran, MN Continental Properties Company, Inc. ∙ W134 N8675 Executive Parkway, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051 Screening Design Principles on Page 14 Utility service structures for single and multifamily residential project contain transformers, electric meters and gas meters have access limitations as laid out by the utility companies and therefore cannot be wholly screened or enclosed. The screen standards must have a carve out to except single and multifamily developments from this requirement as utility service providers will prohibit this requirement. Landscaping Design Standards Page 17 – Under the Ground Cover section, please clearly define a “Bee Lawn” Is there an amount of land area % that alternative ground cover must achieve to gain this standard? Landscaping with native species on Page 16 requires the percentage of species to be at least 50%. This requirement seems only possible in small density residential areas. This standard should be reduced to 15% of the landscaping to be native species for projects with multiple land uses or projects over 10 acres. Rain Garden or Bioretention systems location definition of above ground should be modified to include below ground systems as well. Stormwater Design Principles on Page 21 Can an example of a “Chloride Management Plan” be provided? Has one been created before for a commercial or multifamily project? Are existing multi‐family or commercial businesses required to follow a chloride management system/ plan in the city or watershed? Please reach out to me with any questions or clarifications you have on these comments at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, CONTINENTAL 592 Fund LLC Eric Thom Senior Development Director ethom@cproperties.com Cell 262‐510‐9238 STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 9b. Council Meeting: Medina: May 17, 2022 Work Session Corcoran: May 26, 2022 Council Meeting Prepared By: Dusty Finke, City of Medina Jessica Beise, City of Corcoran Topic: Hackamore Road Improvements Update Action Required: Discussion Summary: Planning for street improvements to Hackamore Road are underway along the border of Corcoran and Medina. The existing road is reaching its life expectancy and the need for improvements to the corridor have been identified because of increasing transportation demands resulting from development activity and pavement condition. Over the past two years, both Medina and Corcoran City Council approved a proposal from WSB to complete engineering services for two 30% street design layout options and a 75% design. A virtual Open House meeting for adjacent property owners was held in May 2020. Approximately 20 residents participated in the event with preliminary feedback given related to the increased traffic potential, future development in the area, and drainage concerns. Road design has been completed to 75% design. Staff have been actively discussing the next steps and potential timeframe to move forward with the project. Mayors McKee and Martin have also discussed coordination. A cost estimate was completed in May 2021 and projected a total cost of $6.7 million. The project was pledged funding of $700,000 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation from the Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP), which would need to be contracted by 2023. To utilize this funding, both staffs are recommending proceeding with final design in 2022. Proceeding with final design will provide the opportunity for the cities to refine costs, analyze funding mechanisms, and complete a cohesive plan guiding the transportation needs, right-of-way, and pedestrian mobility of this corridor. It also positions the cities to be able to contract for an improvement project in 2023. Final Design Staff from both Cities recommend proceeding with final design for the project with the goal of finalizing design by early 2023. Staff also recommend submitting for final watershed approval prior to October 31, 2021, when new rules are anticipated to take effect which may increase the cost and complexity of the project. Based on current schedules the Cities would need to authorize final design by June 9th and begin work on the project to get into the watershed for review by October 31, 2022. Page 2 WSB has submitted a proposal (attached) with an hourly not -to-exceed cost as follows: • Final Design - $229,612 • Easement preparation and staking - $28,484 • Construction Services - $310,094 Staff has reviewed the proposal and reviewed engineering costs for other past projects for context. WSB has also adjusted the scope and costs based on staff feedback. Staff from both cities believes there are significant benefits for WSB to complete final review since the firm has completed the preliminary design work to this point. If both City Councils concur with the framework described in this memo, staff from each city intend to request that each Council authorize final design at the first meeting in June, with the costs of design to be split evenly between Corcoran and Medina. Financial/Budget: The following funding sources have been identified and are projected to cover a majority of the project costs: • Development Responsibilities/Contributions • LRIP Grant Funds from MNDOT • Assessments (future development property-potentially) The cities are also seeking additional funding from Hennepin County for the signals and street improvements at County Road 116 and Hackamore Road. The County participation is expected to be known in the fall of 2022. The amount and means that adjacent developments will contribute to the overall project are still being finalized on various projects. However, staff have projected that there will be a gap after all of the funding noted above have been finalized. Staff from both Cities would like to agree on a framework for the potential funding gap in the project. Staff would propose a 50/50 cost share for the remaining gap. Staff request that each City Council provide feedback on whether they support this framework. Additional details, to the extent known or anticipated, can be provided during the Council’s discussion. Next Steps Based on feedback from each Council, staff anticipates the following next steps: • Request authorization from each Council to proceed with final design • Prepare a memorandum of understanding for consideration by each Council related to the schedule, process, and framework described above (or as indicated by the Councils). Page 3 Options: 1. Provide feedback to staff. 2. Send back to staff for further review. Recommendation: Provide feedback to staff. Council Action: Discussion Attachments: 1. WSB Proposal 2. Hackamore Road Improvement Project – Final Design Memorandum 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM May 11, 2022 Mr. Dusty Finke Mr. Kevin Mattson City Planning Director Public Works Director City of Medina City of Corcoran 2052 County Rd 24 8200 County Rd 116 Medina, MN 55340 Corcoran, MN 55340 Re: Cities of Medina & Corcoran – Hackamore Road Improvement Project Proposal to Provide 100% Final Construction Docs, Bidding, and Construction Services Dear Mr. Finke and Mr. Mattson: On behalf of WSB, we are pleased to present this proposal to provide professional engineering services to the cites of Medina and Corcoran. Specifically, our services will include the completion of 100% final design and plans, technical specifications, construction documents, bidding, and construction services for the Hackamore Road Street Improvement Project. WSB has the staff and experience needed to complete all of the proposed services inhouse. The following letter proposal represents our entire understanding of the project scope and level of engineering services requested. WSB’s experience in working for the Cities of Medina and Corcoran on the design for the Hackamore Road project to date and our history of working with project stakeholders along similar project corridors in the area makes WSB the ideal candidate to complete the 100% final design and construction services. Our project team members have led many projects requiring coordination with the multiple Cities, MnDOT, and Hennepin County. We will support Medina and Corcoran in their efforts at all levels to complete this project in the most efficient and cost effective manner. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Cities are requesting engineering design services that include 100% final design plans, specifications, construction documents, bidding, and construction services for the full reconstruction of Hackamore Road. The project will generally include final design of the proposed street, trail, storm sewer, and related stormwater management from 1,500 feet west of CR 116 to the westerly quadrant of CR 101; in total approximately 6,800 lineal feet. The scope of the requested engineering and technical services will include the following: · This design phase will be an extension of the plans previously completed up to a 75% level; it has been assumed that the general design and proposed alignments/locations for the roadway, trail, storm sewer, and stormwater management systems will not change significantly. · The portions of the proposed trail and permanent stormwater management that are adjacent to or extend beyond the street right-of-way into the “Gonyea” and “Hoglund” parcels will not be designed or constructed with this scope of work. · The signal at CR 116 will be included with the project scope for both design and construction. Coordination with Hennepin County for approval of the signal funding and design has also been included. · The easterly extents of the project will include what is needed to connect into the project currently being proposed at CR 101 by the City of Plymouth for the CR 47 improvements. Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 2 This project proposes the design and installation of the signal system and street improvements up to the westerly quadrant radii of the intersection at CR101. · No watermain or sanitary sewer reconstruction or extension will be included with this scope of work. · For the construction services phase, it has been assumed that all portions of the project included with 100% final design will be bid and constructed as one contiguous project, but with multiple phases occurring during the specified duration for active construction. · It is understood that the City of Corcoran is planning to assess adjacent property owners with future development potential (Gonyea and Hoglund), but none other. As requested in the RFP, the proposed scope of engineering services detailed in this proposal will include the following in summary: 100% Final Construction Documents & Bidding · Topographic survey for remaining areas (confirmation of Wenck ROW boundary) and base-map updates in an AutoCAD format. · Preparation of temporary/permanent easement sketches, legal descriptions, and staking of easements in the field. Cities will coordinate and provide title work/searches and owner negotiations. Lennar project easements not needed. · Utility coordination and two meetings with utility companies. · Final design and preparation of 100% construction plans, specifications, contract documents. · Prepare feasibility study meeting the requirements of MN Chapter 429, preparation of assessment roll, and attendance/presentations at public hearings. · Prepare Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) report for the CR 116 intersection. · Coordinate the signal design and approval through Hennepin County. · Stormwater management design (interim conditions) and preparation of SWPPP. · Submit plans/permit application to watershed district for permanent stormwater management and construction related erosion control. · Prepare wetland impact permit application, coordinate mitigation or credit request. · Prepare a cost estimate at 90% and 100% completion to the City for the road, trail, stormwater management, and the CR 116 signal location. · Submit final plans and SEQ to MnDOT for review and approval meeting State Aid Requirements. · Prepare LRIP agreement and coordinate approvals for use of grant funds on project. · Constructability review and QA/QC coordination. · Bidding services, attend bid opening, coordination and preparation of bid tabulation. Provide brief memorandum for Council agenda packet. Stakeholder Engagement & Public Involvement · Project meetings with the staff of both Cities (simultaneous) including one for a kick-off and one every month thereafter through December (total of seven meetings). · One meeting that includes Hennepin County, Medina, and Corcoran. · Two City Council meetings with each of the Cities (total of four meetings), one at approximately 90% design and the other at the approval of plans/specifications. Provide presentation and brief memorandum for Council agenda packets as needed. · Meetings with property owner groups, two total meetings. · Public involvement including one community engagement activity, virtual or in-person. Construction Services · Project management and administration including weekly meeting attendance/coordination. · NPDES permit preparation for construction activity. · Review of shop drawings including those for signal work. Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 3 · RFI’s and plan/design revisions. · Full-time construction observation. · Construction surveying/staking. · Materials testing in accordance with MnDOT standards. · Preparation of record drawings (both roadway and wetland impacts). · Project documentation review and prevailing wage compliance coordination. · Warranty inspection and coordination. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR 100% DESIGN & BIDDING The following is a list of deliverables needed to complete the engineering and design components of the project at a 100% level of design, final construction plans, construction documents, specifications, and bidding services. Project management is a key component included in each task as proposed. Within each task and deliverable, project coordination and communication with both Cities, residents, other project stakeholders, and the project design team will be critical for success. Active project management and utilization of WSB’s project controls group will allow for open lines of communication and routine updates on project issues, as well as keeping the project on schedule and within budget. Topographic Survey, Boundary Confirmation & Base-Mapping Updates A design level topographic survey was completed prior for the project between Wenck & WSB for the general corridor area within public right of way to identify surficial information/landmarks, existing grades, and public/private utility locations. Because Wenck completed the original survey of the boundary and right of way line work, WSB will need to confirm with shots of additional property corners and review with available monumentation. The final AutoCAD base-mapping information will not constitute an official boundary survey, but a high-quality survey grade right-of-way/parcel map will be created using available plat maps and existing field survey shots. The cost of document fees for official plats, title work, or easement documents have not been included with this proposal. The overall task will also include additional topography work in areas beyond the public right of way where the proposed design extends into these areas and finalizing an AutoCAD base map with the additional information for the purposes of final design, notification of private utility companies within the project corridor, and any other related information for the area that may impact design or future construction. In addition, once private utility mapping is received and reviewed, the scope of the survey work will include additional field shots and verification of private utility lines that may have changed since the original survey was completed. 100% Design and Final Construction Plan Preparation WSB will complete 100% final design and prepare a set of final construction plans in accordance with MnDOT State Aid Highway standards. WSB will coordinate its work closely with the Cities of Medina and Corcoran, MnDOT State Aid, and other public agencies (including Hennepin County) during the entire design process to ensure that agency requirements are met. We will work together with both City staff during the final design task to determine any further cost saving means and methods of designing and constructing the proposed street and trail improvements. The plans will detail the improvements including the roadway typical street/pavement sections, quantity tabulations with MnDOT SEQ, removals and restoration, plan/profiles for street/storm sewer improvements, signal design at CR 116, temporary/permanent signing/striping, construction traffic control, erosion control, SWPPP, cross sections, and other plans required to meet the governing agency requirements for submittal at this stage of the project. Assessment Process We understood that the City of Corcoran is planning to assess adjacent property owners with future development potential (Gonyea and Hoglund), but no other property locations. Our team will prepare Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 4 a feasibility study that outlines the project necessity, feasibility of constructing the improvements, review of existing conditions, include estimated costs, and include a preliminary assessment roll. We will assist the City of Corcoran in the special assessment process, including preparation of the assessment roll based on the estimated project costs in conformance with State Statute Chapter 429 for special assessments. WSB will prepare for, attend, and present at both the improvement and assessment hearings. Final Signal Design & Coordination with Hennepin County WSB will prepare final construction plans for the signal system at CR 116 based on the preliminary design. The traffic signal system will be designed in conformance with all applicable state and local electrical codes, federal and state Manuals on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD), and both MnDOT State Aid and Hennepin County standards. The traffic signal final design and construction plans will be prepared to be included in the roadway plans. The final plan sheets will include: · Standard traffic signal detail sheets · Intersection layout showing the signal phasing, detector operations, pedestrian accommodations, and Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) · Field wiring diagram Prepare Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report In accordance with MnDOT and Hennepin County requirements, WSB will prepare an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) for a proposed revision to the Hackamore Road and CR 116 intersection. The ICE report will be prepared using the site and traffic data and analysis previously completed. The report will be prepared and signed by a WSB registered engineer and submitted to the Cities for review and comment. It is assumed that the Cities will provide one set of review comments. Following receipt of comments, a final report and recommendation will be prepared and submitted to the Cities for final approval and signature. The document will then be submitted to Hennepin County and MnDOT State Aid for review and approval. MnDOT Coordination & Final Plan Submittal WSB will prepare and submit final plans for both Cities, Hennepin County, and MnDOT State Aid review and comments. We will provide a written comment resolution form for each submittal addressing the comments and actions taken. We will work proactively with both Cities, Hennepin County, and MnDOT’s review staff to address the comments in the most efficient manner. WSB will prepare and submit a final signed and certified plan set to Hennepin County and MnDOT in order to receive approval to let the project. The Cites received and LRIP grant award for this project and our scope of services will also assist in preparing the necessary MnDOT agreements and coordination with the pertinent staff for approvals. Private Utility & GSOC Coordination This task will include a Gopher State One Call request for utility maps to confirm the locations of utilities match that of the original field survey, and coordination with specific utility companies that may have conflicts with the proposed street and storm sewer installations. If potholing in the field is necessary to determine the elevation of specific utility lines, WSB will coordinate this effort, but the City will be responsible for contracting with a company or providing staff that can complete the pot-holing work. WSB will hold two formal utility coordination meetings with the affected utility providers and any necessary meetings in the field to discuss specific impacts, if needed. It has been assumed there will be utility impacts and modifications needed to complete the reconstruction as proposed and Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 5 this task includes the coordination necessary with the private utility owners to accommodate relocations. The scope of work does not include interpretation or enforcement of the cities franchise agreements for the costs of relocation or undergrounding of utilities. Stormwater Management Design & Permitting WSB will provide final design services for the storm sewer system and BMPs for the proposed Hackamore Road improvements in accordance with both Cities and ECWMC’s design requirements. Taking the 75% design to final design and construction documents for drainage includes: · Finalize permitting with ECWMC. The 75% plans were submitted for preliminary review by ECWMC. They have indicated preliminary acceptance of the concept plan for the project and the potential for it to meet the Commission requirements. However, they will require a full submittal (Erosion sediment control, SWPPP, updated BMP design using adjacent developments for a portion of compliance, evaluation of interim conditions, etc). Based on the initial permit submittal comment memo from ECMWC, this includes: o We have included in our scope response to one round of ECWMC comments. o Both the Reserve of Medina and Tavera have submitted plans for approval from ECWMC that included treatment of impervious areas from the Hackamore Road project. We have assumed that no additional rate control analysis for those portions of the road project will be required. o We have budgeted for a total of 6 hours of coordination and updates with the Tavera developer’s engineer. This development has continued to progress since the 75% submittal date. We will update the design and permit memo as needed to reflect the updates for the Tavera development. o We have assumed that the other future developments along the corridor have not progressed since the 75% plans were completed and sent to ECWMC. o Since the Gonyea and Hoglund developments have not proceeded, ECWMC staff have indicated that interim BMPs may be needed to mitigate downstream erosion and discharge rate increases. We have assumed that interim BMPs will be needed at 2 locations. We will design interim BMPs to address the temporary conditions until developments occur on these properties. It is assumed that ECWMC will approve an interim solution that allows Hackamore Road to be built adjacent to these properties and full BMP designs to be provided at a later date when the developments occur. · Prepare 90% and 100% drainage plans, specifications and engineering cost estimates. Our budget assumes that no major changes will be required to the roadway profile and typical section from the 75% submittal. · Prepare and submit the State Aid Hydraulic submittal. · Prepare a summary Stormwater Report for submittal to ECWMC, including an accounting of the proposed impervious values to be routed to future developments for tracking (Gonyea and Hoglund properties). · The final version of both the HydroCAD modeling and Stormwater Report will incorporate any comments received from both City staff members. · We have included 2 meetings with full project team (including both Cities) to discuss the drainage design. · We have included 3 meetings with ECWMC Staff to discuss the updated permit submittal. · We have included 2 meetings with 2 of the property owners to specifically discuss the proposed drainage improvements. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Development This task includes the final preparation of the construction related erosion/sediment control plan sheets and the written narrative of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with MPCA NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES permit will not be Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 6 submitted for until the project has been bid and construction is imminent. The permit fee has not been included but can be invoiced as a pass-through cost. Wetland Impact Permitting WSB will prepare permit applications and obtain permits from the following agencies, as needed: · Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission · Wetland Conservation Act (City of Medina and City of Corcoran) · US Army Corps of Engineers · MN Board of Water and Soil Resources (for Local Road Wetland Replacement Program, if applicable) · MN Department of Natural Resources · MN Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit) Permits may also be needed for construction dewatering but will be the responsibility of the construction contractor to obtain. This scope also assumes that any wetland impacts from the project will fall under the USACE’s Transportation Regional General Permit or a Nationwide Permit Category and no additional MPCA coordination will be required for Section 401 Certification. To prepare the applications, WSB will develop a purpose and need, evaluate project alternatives, and create impact exhibits. If the project qualifies for the BWSR Local Road Wetland Replacement Program, WSB will develop the information for that approval as well. If the project impacts do not qualify, WSB will identify wetland banks that meet the siting criteria for WCA and the USACE Section 404 permit. Upon approval of permits, WSB will review permit conditions and inform the Cities of any conditions prior to construction. Mitigation for impacts to DNR public waters is expected to be covered by the WCA/USACE mitigation and no additional DNR-specific mitigation will be required. Specifications & Contract Documents WSB will prepare final specifications, special provisions, contract documents, wage compliance documents, and bid form(s) in accordance with both City standards and State Aid requirements and to facilitate bidding of the project. Cost Estimating WSB will prepare final project cost estimate at 90% and 100% completion levels that includes the proposed street, trail, intersection control (signal) improvements, stormwater management components, and associated overhead allotments. The costs will be split by funding categories in accordance with what MnDOT requires for a State Aid compliant plan. Quality Control Within all tasks of this project, WSB will implement plan review and quality assurance/quality control procedures and protocols for the proposed design and plans. This will provide the client with a high level of plan/document quality and future constructability. Public Engagement & Stakeholder Involvement WSB will hold project meetings with the Cities and other stakeholders throughout the design process to ensure the final product meets the intended need. The meetings will include one kick-off meeting with both City staff members upon authorization of the proposal, six progress/design meetings with both Cities (simultaneously) approximately every month, three City Council meetings (two with Median and one with Corcoran), two separate public hearings at the City of Corcoran for the Chapter 429 assessment process, one community engagement activity with affected residents or other stakeholders, a total of two meetings with property owner groups in the field to discuss project related impacts, and one meeting that includes Hennepin County and both Cities. WSB has excellent working relationships with the regulatory agencies and will plan early and frequent communication in order to keep the permitting process on schedule. Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 7 WSB will provide the necessary graphics, maps, and presentation materials to be used at the public engagement activity and project meetings. We will work with the staff members of both Cities to develop and mail the required notices for project meetings and prepare any necessary resolutions for City Council meetings, if needed. WSB can provide a formatted notice to be sent to property owners or other stakeholders, but the City will mail the notices using City stationary and address labels. Bidding Services WSB staff will prepare the advertisement for bids, respond to contractor questions, attend the bid opening at City Hall, provide a bid tabulation, tabulate the bids, evaluate qualifications, and provide an award recommendation. It has been assumed that no pre-bid meeting will be required and that bidding will occur in an electronic format. Easement Sketches & Staking There are a37 total parcels adjacent to Hackamore Road through the 1.4 miles of the project area. Of those parcels, our design team identified approximately 22 that may have a need for temporary, permanent (or both) easements. The scope of work will include the additional field work to verify parcel boundaries and the necessary updates to the AutoCAD base-mapping. We will also prepare temporary/permanent easement sketches, legal descriptions, and provide staking of easements in the field (one set for each property). We did not include easements for the Lennar parcel(s) west of CR 116. It is expected that the cities will coordinate and provide the title searches for each of the properties, negotiate with the property owners, and draft the required conveyance documents if needed. We understand that some properties may have existing easements and some time has been included for identifying these through the title work. However, if there are a significant amount of them and/or are highly complicated, the time and fee for our services could vary and increase; we will not know how this could vary without reviewing the title work first. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES The following is a list of detailed deliverables needed to administer the construction phase of the project. WSB will provide the necessary project management and inspection services to ensure the construction phase proceeds according to the plans and specifications. Based on our knowledge of this project, we anticipate 22 weeks of active construction in 2023; it is understood that final project completion including wear course will be in 2023. It is understood that the Cities may utilize State Aid funding for this project and therefore materials testing and wage compliance procedures will be required and the necessary oversight achieved with our scope of services to allow for retroactive MSA or grant funding reimbursement. Project Management WSB will provide project management throughout the duration of this project. This will include the following deliverables: · Prepare materials for and attend the preconstruction meeting and weekly on-site meetings for the duration of the project. · Prepare materials and coordinate private utility relocations prior to construction. · Communicate with the City Engineer’s and Contractor to address project related issues. · Coordinate signal construction with Hennepin County. · Review shop drawings, respond to RFI’s, prepare any necessary plan revisions, and coordinate with the contractor and cities on any plan changes. · Provide understanding of City’s standard construction practices as they relate to the project. Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 8 · Provide the necessary resources and direction to WSB personnel to ensure project compliance and quality results. · Review and verify prepared pay vouchers and documented quantities. · Provide the tools and equipment needed to WSB personnel to perform and meet the expected outcomes of the project including cell phones, computers, iPad’s, PPE, testing equipment, and additional supplies needed to perform the work. · Provide services required under this contract as necessary to accommodate the contractor’s schedule. Contract Administration WSB will provide contract administration for this project. Our project team will work with the contractor and the Cities to ensure construction work and activities will be constructed in accordance with the plans and standards and are correctly and adequately documented throughout the project. Scope of work for this task includes: · Attend construction meetings for close coordination of day-to-day progress of work and ensure the project is being completed as intended. · Communicate regularly with involved stakeholders to keep them informed regarding the impact of construction to the area, including neighbors, businesses, and local agencies. · Review, document and file contractor permits, submittals, test reports, and certificates of compliance. · Verify and review all labor submittals meet requirements. · Accurately verify contract pay items daily. · Prepare all pay vouchers in accordance to project revenues and expenses. · Prepare contract change documents and cost estimates with negotiations with the contractor on any contract changes. · Respond to all contractor requests for information (RFI). · Complete all necessary field finalizing of the project documentation in accordance with project specifications. Construction Observation and Inspection WSB will provide Construction Observation and Inspection services through construction of the project and final project closeout. This task will include: · Record all construction activities daily, making a complete and accurate record of all events. · Ensure construction practices and materials used on site are compliant with project specifications. · Accurately measure and record contract pay items daily. · Perform daily reviews of construction signing, detour signing, and construction traffic control maintenance. · Perform monthly labor compliance interviews. · Communicate regularly with the Project Manager, Contractor, Cities, and involved stakeholders. · Perform reviews of temporary and permanent erosion control measures on the project for compliance to applicable permits and specifications. · Provide services required under this contract as necessary to accommodate the contractors schedule and needs. · Exercise the “Authority and Duties of the Inspector” as necessary. Construction Staking WSB will provide Survey services through project construction. This will include: · Verifying datum points are accurate and correct. · Provide all required construction staking including setting benchmark elevation locations. · Providing and maintain records for as-builts. · Coordinate with contractor on private utility relocations. Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 9 Depending on project sequencing and workload, as determined by the contractor, we will adjust our staffing needs accordingly. Materials Testing WSB will conduct materials testing for the project in compliance with State Aid requirements. The testing is conducted to verify that what materials the contractor is procuring for the project are consistent with the construction specifications. The deliverable for this task will include plant inspections, materials certification review, certification summary, and any exception reports required. Project Closeout, Wage Compliance, & Documentation Review WSB will review project documents including those as a result of the materials testing, wage compliance, and other required documentation. This work is an effort to complete this project under the requirements of MnDOT State Aid. Record Drawings WSB will prepare record drawings for the project upon completion of construction. This task will include a field survey of the final invert elevations of any storm sewer, hydrants, or sewer manholes as well as updates to the pertinent plan sheet information. WSB will provide hard copies to City staff, update the City’s Datalink system mapping, and provide a link to the electronic record plan pdf. Warranty Inspection WSB will conduct a warranty review of the project with City staff and prepare a letter of final acceptability prior to the expiration of the warranty period. OPTIONAL SERVICES NOT INCLUDED Right-Of-Way Acquisition/Coordination Our right of way group has extensive experience acquiring right of way for Cities, counties, MnDOT and outstate DOT’s as well. These acquisitions were completed on a variety of types of properties including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and recreational land. Our approach on all our projects is to treat the owners respectfully, listen to their concerns and work to address them, if possible, without compromising the needs and integrity of the project schedule. A determination of the scope of this work can be determined once the affected parcels are identified. Miscellaneous · Formal report or detailed memoranda/feasibility unless specifically noted. · Additional grant funding applications or coordination thereof. · Additional traffic studies and traffic generation modelling. · Retaining wall design. · Soil borings or geotechnical evaluation. · Lighting or landscaping design/plans. · Interpretation or enforcement of private utility franchise agreements. Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 10 ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Below is a general project schedule with major milestones. The exact timing of the community engagement activity, work task timelines, and completion dates will be discussed with the Cities at the project kick-off meeting. 100% Final Design & Bidding Services Schedule Consultant Authorization (Medina CC 6/7, Corcoran CC 6/9) ................................. By June 9, 2022 Project Kickoff Meeting with Project Team (Both Cities) .............................. Week of June 20, 2022 Field Work (Remaining Topographic Survey / Boundary) ............................................... June, 2022 Begin Final Design ............................................................................................................. July, 2022 First Utility Coordination Meeting(s) .............................................................................. August, 2022 Evaluate Final Right of Way Needs ....................................................................... September, 2022 Meeting with County and both Cities ..................................................................... September, 2022 Submit ICE to Hennepin County and MnDOT ....................................................... September, 2022 Set of City Council Meetings (for Input and Direction on Final Design, Costs) .......... October, 2022 Complete 90% Level of Design ........................................................................ End of October, 2022 Submit Plans/Permit to Watershed .................................................................. End of October, 2022 Community Engagement Event ..................................................................... Early November, 2022 Submit to MnDOT for Final Review ............................................................... Early November, 2022 Second Utility Coordination Meeting(s) ................................................................... November, 2022 Finalize Wetland Mitigation/Impact Permit .............................................................. November, 2022 Complete 100% Final Design ................................................................................. December, 2022 Set of City Council Meetings (Approve Plans / Authorize for Bid) ................. January 12 & 17, 2023 Bid Opening .......................................................................................................... February 16, 2023 Project Award ........................................................................................................ March 2 & 7, 2023 Construction Services Begin Construction ................................................................................................... Late May, 2023 Substantial Completion (Including Wear Course) ...................................................... October, 2023 Final Completion ..................................................................................................... November, 2023 Warranty Inspection (2-Year Warranty) ......................................................................... Spring, 2025 PROPOSED FEE Based on the proposed task hour budget, WSB will complete the scope of work for 100% final design, construction documents, and construction services on hourly basis for a not-to-exceed cost as follows. The optional services are not included in this summary. 100% Final Construction Documents & Bidding Services $ 229,612 Easement Preparation & Staking Services $ 28,484 Construction Services $ 310,094 Grand Total $ 568,190 A copy of the project task hour budget is attached for your reference. This represents our complete understanding and scope of the project. We are available to begin work immediately upon authorization as indicated in the proposed project schedule. Cities of Corcoran & Medina – Hackamore Rd Improvement Project – Proposal for Final Design, Bidding & Construction Services May 11, 2022 Page 11 WSB appreciates the opportunity to provide the Cities of Corcoran and Medina with this proposal. As always, we are looking forward to working with you and your staff toward the completion of the project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments that you have. Sincerely, WSB James L. Stremel, PE Senior Project Manager 763.287.8532 jstremel@wsbeng.com Attachments: Detailed Estimate of Fees City of Medina: City of Corcoran: _________________________________ _______________________________ Authorized Signature Authorized Signature _________________________________ _______________________________ Title Date Title Date Project Design ManagerProject Manager ConstructionProject Lead InspectorEnvironmental ComplianceEEO/ Labor Senior Survey TechnicianTwo PersonSignal SpecialistClericalTotal HoursCostJim Stremel Paul Kyle TBD Joel Sundeen Kelly Timmreck Pete Helder Survey Crew Mary Schwartz Sue BuckleyWORK TASKConstruction ServicesPROJECT MANAGEMENTProject Management (2 hour per week CM and 3 hours per week for DM)66 4410 120 $19,626RFI, Design Revision, Change Orders16 824 $4,120Public Engagement for Construction Related Activities8 2432 $5,080Submittal Review/Shop Drawing Review12 86 26 $4,316CONTRACT ADMINISTRATIONPre-Construction Conference422210$1,494Private Utility Meetings8614$2,018Weekly Meeting (Assume 1 meeting a week for 22 weeks, 1.5 hours per meeting)113344$6,985Labor Compliance (2 hours per week)4444$4,004Documentation Review (1/2 hour a week)1111$1,661Contract Administration (1/2 hour a week)1111$1,661Monthly Pay Estimates (6 estimates) 661224$3,162Final Pay Voucher 224210$1,400Final Documentation (1 week, 40 hours per week)2301042$6,244 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICESPre-Project Inspection / Removal Measurements 256 31 $4,299Construction Inspection (22 Weeks)98048 1028 $139,692Punchlist / Final Inspection6 166 28 $4,176Record Plan Measurements 88 $1,080CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING SERVICESConstruction Survey Staking230230 $45,770Office Support2020 $3,440Record Plans416 1232 $5,868ENVIRONMANTALWeekly NPDES Inspections (2 hours per week, for 26 weeks)5252 $4,940On Site Documentation (1 hours per week, for 26 weeks)2626 $2,470Post Rain Event Inspections (Assume 1 rain event every other week) 2626 $2,470Wetland Post-Construction Asbuilt & Memo, Closeout with Watershed 18413 $1,738Agency Coordination44 $380Assume 12 weeks construction inspection, 5 days per week, 11 hours per dayAssume 6 weeks construction inspection, 5 days per week, 8 hours per dayAssume 4 weeks construction inspection, 5 days per week, 4 hours per dayTotal Hours138 187 1051 116 44 36 246 66 261910278,094$ Hourly Costs182$ 151$ 135$ 95$ 91$ 172$ 199$ 154$ 97$ WSB SALARY COSTS25,116$ 28,237$ 141,885$ 11,020$ 4,004$ 6,192$ 48,954$ 10,164$ 2,522$ 278,094$ Construction Materials Testing 32,000$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PROJECT COST310,094$ Estimate of FeesProfessional Engineering Services for the Construction PhaseHackamore Road Improvement ProjectCities of Medina and Corcoran, Minnesota Task Description11.1 Project Management & Controls 606010,440$ 1.2 Topographic Survey & Base Mapping Update 1 2 4 811 16427,014$ 1.3 Design - Road & Trail24 120 120 300 2 457076,256$ 1.4 Design - Signal System & County Coordination 2 6 4 248 24 4010815,608$ 1.5 Design - Stormwater & BMP2 16 8 248 4810613,460$ 1.6 Design - SWPPP, Erosion/Sediment Control 2 8 1624505,652$ 1.7 Design - Temporary Traffic Traffic Control 2 16 2 161 8 1 12587,925$ 1.8 Cost Estimates & MnDOT SEQ 6 12 2 62 1 2 24375,141$ 1.9 Utility Coordination & Meetings (2) 14 40 2 8648,952$ 1.10 Meetings - WSB Design Team (Inc. Kick-Off) (7)12 7 2 2 2 2 2 4 7406,143$ 1.11 Meetings - Full Project Team (Inc. Both Cities) (7) 21 1222 2396,220$ 1.12 Meetings - Property Owner Groups (2) 6 83 3203,002$ 1.13 Meetings - With County (Inc. Both Cities) (1) 3 3171,109$ 1.14 Meetings - City Council (3)15 92 2284,392$ 1.15 Meetings - CC Public Hearings (2) 10 6162,520$ 1.16 Community Engagement Activity (1) 4 8 224202,786$ 1.17 Feasibility Report & Assessment Roll (Corcoran)12 208405,448$ 1.18 ICE Report for CR 116 Signal 28 14 4284,448$ 1.19 Permit Application - Wetland Mitigation 2 2 48 55717,147$ 1.20 Permit Application - Watershed 18 100 2 1012113,828$ 1.21 MnDOT Coordination (LRIP, State Aid) 12 122 2284,292$ 1.22 Specifications & Contract Documents 8 241 2 6 6 1 420729,293$ 1.23 Constructability & QA / QC Review 6 4 8 4 8304,444$ 1.24 Bidding Services8 1212324,092$ Task 1 Total Estimated Hours and Fee 235 347 148 412 11 25 25 60 54 30 170 10 65 24 44 11 16 1687 229,612$ 22.1 Boundary Field Work 12122,388$ 2.2 Basemapping Updates40406,560$ 2.3 Easement (Temp & Perm) Sketches909014,760$ 2.4 Staking of Easements24244,776$ Task 2 Total Estimated Hours and Fee130 36 166 28,484$ Total Estimated Hours235 347 148 412 11 25 25 60 54 30 170 10 65 24 44 141 52 1853Average Hourly Billing Rate174$ 130$ 138$ 130$ 184$ 138$ 197$ 138$ 148$ 197$ 109$ 164$ 85$ 91$ 95$ 164$ 199$ Subtotal Base Fee by Labor Classification40,890$ 45,110$ 20,424$ 53,560$ 2,024$ 3,450$ 4,925$ 8,280$ 7,992$ 5,910$ 18,530$ 1,640$ 5,525$ 2,184$ 4,180$ 23,124$ 10,348$ 258,096$ TOTAL ESTIMATE OF ENGINEERING FEES 258,096$ Estimate of FeesHackamore Road Improvement ProjectCity of Medina & City of CorcoranAlison HarwoodMallori FitzpatrickWater Res. Project EngineerCostGina DullingerTotal HoursSWPPP SpecialistMary SchwartzJoel SundeenLaura PietilaEasement Sketches & StakingPete Halder Two-PersonSurvey CoordinatorNic HentgesEarth EvansFinal Road & Trail DesignEvan SchnitkerGeometric Design EngineerEnvironmental ScientistDustin SimonsonAdmin AssistantSue BuckleyEnvironmental ScientistWater Res. Project ManagerProfessional Engineering Services for 100% Final Construction Plans & BiddingProject EngineerJim StremelMunicipal Project EngineerSenior Project ManagerLydia EnerSenior Traffic EngineerChuck RickertTransportation Project ManagerCAD Corridor DesignerCAD DesignerChris BundersSurvey CrewSignal Specialist K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum To: Honorable Mayors and City Councils City of Corcoran City of Medina From: Jim Stremel, PE - Senior Project Manager, WSB Date: May 13, 2021 Re: Hackamore Road Improvement Project – 75% Design WSB Project No. R-015661-000 Project Scope & Background The Hackamore Road Improvement Project, extending from Medina Lake Drive to the approach of Brockton Lane N (CR 101), was initiated jointly by the City of Corcoran and the City of Medina. The project was initiated to address deteriorating and insufficient infrastructure, and to develop a cohesive plan that both cities can provide to adjacent property owners and developers to guide transportation needs, right-of-way, pedestrian mobility, and stormwater management needs in the area. This memorandum constitutes a summary of the engineering work completed to a level of 75% design. Approval of the vision and design of the corridor from the City Councils’ will not constitute an authorization for funding or construction of the project. The preparation of the 75% plans will also provide the basis to implement the project vision with potential phasing of construction as one large project or as smaller multiple projects involving various stakeholders. Information and materials used in the preparation of this report were collected from the City of Corcoran, City of Medina, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and other impacted agencies. This data included: ·Existing and historic traffic volume data ·Current crash history ·Proposed and anticipated development plans ·As-built roadway plans ·Survey/topographic data previously obtained or readily available ·Wetland and floodplain locations from available delineations, GIS, or other mapping ·Property Owner and Stakeholder engagement data ·City franchise agreements with private utility companies ·Soil borings and geotechnical report by Haugo Geotechnical Services, June 2019 Existing Conditions The project corridor extends from Medina Lake Drive to the intersection at Brockton Lane N (CR 101). The existing Hackamore Road is currently a 24-foot wide, bituminous paved rural section; no pedestrian facilities exist along this section of roadway. The alignment of the roadway is generally straight with no horizontal curves. The current posted speed is 40 MPH in both directions. Based on a 40 MPH speed, a vertical curve on the easterly portion of the project (the westerly approach to CR 101) is deficient and does not provide the required sight distance. Crash data from the past 3 years (2017-2019) was collected for the Hackamore Road corridor. The data shows that over the past three years there has been 11 crashes in the corridor. 10 of K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx the crashes have occurred at the County Road intersections and just one at the internal street intersections. Table 1 show the crash data by year for each location. Table 1: Crash Summary by Year Location 2017 2018 2019 Total Crashes PI PD PI PD PI PD Hackamore Road at Pinto Dr (CSAH 116) 0 2 0 1 1 1 5 Hackamore Road at Hunter Road 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Hackamore Road at Brocton Lane (CSAH 101) 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 PD = Property Damage, PI = Personal Injury Pavements in the study area are aging and experiencing differing severities of stresses including alligator cracking, longitudinal cracking, and transverse cracking. Areas of isolated pavement settlement also exist throughout the project area. The Geotechnical Exploration Report, by Haugo Geotechnical Services in June 2019, can be provided upon request. Currently, there is not a storm sewer collection system within Hackamore Road. The existing roadway is a rural section road with ditches along a majority of the length of the roadway. Driveway culverts are present at existing driveway approaches to the road. Additionally, there are 4 culverts that convey drainage across the roadway. There are existing drainage issues that have been identified both by residents and engineering observation and analysis. Specifically, there is a low point in the corridor to the west of Hackamore Circle. Currently, water pools on private property along both sides of the roadway at this location. This drainage issue will involve working with adjacent property owners on the north side of the road to determine if property is available for stormwater management. There are no existing sanitary sewer systems within Hackamore Road. There is an existing 8” PVC watermain section located along the south side of Hackamore in the boulevard between Hunter Drive and Bergamot Drive with a crossing to Corcoran at Bergamot Drive for use as an emergency interconnection. Existing traffic volume data for the primary intersections was collected based on traffic counts conducted the week of March 9, 2020. These counts were used as the existing baseline conditions for the area. The existing 2020 peak hour and average daily traffic (ADT) traffic counts for the corridor are shown on the attached figure in Appendix D and used for the traffic forecasting and operations analysis in this report. Traffic Forecasting Analysis In order to analyze the lane configuration and traffic control needs in the corridor, traffic forecasts were prepared for the twenty-year design (year 2040) condition, representing the full development of the area. 2040 traffic volumes were determined for the project by projecting the existing 2020 traffic counts to the 2040 design year. The projections included: · Background traffic growth of 1% / year. · Estimating the traffic volume from the current adjacent development that is yet to be completed. · Estimating the traffic volumes from proposed future development in the corridor. K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx The trip generation used to estimate the proposed area traffic is based on rates for other similar land uses as documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The projected 2040 AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, assuming full development of the area traffic, are shown on the attached figure in Appendix D. Traffic Operations Analysis The traffic operations analysis was completed by evaluating the existing and projected traffic operations for the Hackamore Road project area, including the intersections of: · Medina Lake Drive / Future Development Access · Foxberry Drive · Pinto Drive (CSAH 116) · Future Development Access · Hunter Road / Future Development Access · Bergamot Drive / Steeple Chase Lane · Proposed Development Access (Church) · Brockton Lane (CSAH 101) The intersections in the corridor were evaluated during the AM and PM peak hours using Synchro/SimTraffic micro simulation software. The results are derived from established methodologies documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The software was used to evaluate the characteristics of the roadway network including lane geometrics, turning movement volumes, traffic control, and signal timing. The results of the operations analysis is provided in Appendix D for the Existing year 2020 Conditions, year 2040 without any improvements conditions, and year 2040 with proposed improvements condition. The table shows worse levels of service in 2040 if no improvements are made, and improved levels of service in 2040 if the improvements are made. Turn Lane Analysis Based on the Forecasted 2040 traffic conditions a turn lane analysis was completed for the primary intersections in project area. The analysis was conducted to determine the turn lanes needed to accommodate the existing and future development on Hackamore Road. Criteria and guidance reviewed included: · MnDOT Road Design Manual · MnDOT Access Management Manual · MnDOT / LRRB (Local Road Research Board) Research Report 2008-14: Turn Lane Lengths for Various Speed Road and Evaluation of Determining Criteria · NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Report 457: Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Intersection locations to future developments were provided with 30% design and are based on either an existing development plan (Tavera development), or site constraints such as proximity to other intersections, wetlands, or undesirable topography. The proposed intersection at the future development site located at 19200 Hackamore road is placed at the recommended minimum distance to County Road 101. The proposed intersection location at the future development site located at 19600 Hackamore road is placed at a convenient access point that is east of the existing wetlands and that would be ideal for aligning with any future development access to the south of Hackamore Road. K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx During the 75%, design right-of-way constraints associated with the location of the pedestrian path required the additional review of the westbound right turn lane at Hunter Road. Based on further review of the turn lane criteria, it was determined that the right turn lane could be eliminated. All other turn lanes recommended in the turn lane location analysis were implemented per the 30% design evaluation and recommendations. The full turn lane analysis report can be found in Appendix D and graphically shown in the project plans/exhibits in Appendices A & B. Proposed Improvements During the 30% design phase of the project, two options were considered for the roadway, turn lane, and pedestrian alignments. Option 1 was comprised of a continuous center left turn lane, right turn lanes at designated intersections, and one through lane in each direction. The second option included dedicated left and right turn lanes as necessary, and one through lane in each direction. The cities choose to proceed to 75% design with Option 2. This option was less costly, while maintaining beneficial corridor improvements to accommodate current and future traffic levels, by decreasing the impervious surface, lowering the stormwater management needs, and minimizing wetland impacts in comparison to Option 1. The final trail configuration was a combination of Options 1 and 2, with the boulevard width maximized where future development could accommodate the additional impacts and minimized or eliminated adjacent to existing developed property. The detail in this memo will focus on the improvements of the preferred option (Option 2). Road Geometric Comparisons: The proposed improvements include roadway pavement reclamation, subbase reconstruction, intersection improvements, and trail construction on the north side of Hackamore Road. The roadway will be a combination of both a rural and urban street section. Curb and gutter is proposed for locations needing additional drainage collection/conveyance, where the trail will be located at the back of curb to decrease the overall roadway width, and at the intersections with CR 116 and CR 101. The roadway section includes dedicated left and right turn lanes as necessary, and one through lane in each direction. The trail location is generally close to (with varying widths of boulevard) or abutting the edge of the roadway. Hackamore Road is a designated by both cities as a State Aid roadway. The existing roadway alignment meets all horizontal curve requirements but does not meet the vertical curve requirements at the east end of the project on the westerly approach to CR 101 for a 40 MPH posted speed limit. In order to meet State Aid requirements and the required sight distance, the proposed design lengthens this vertical curve, which would require grading to lower the elevation by a minimum of one foot. Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvements: Currently, there are no pedestrian facilities along Hackamore Road. However, pedestrian facilities do exist on the east side of the CR 101 intersection extending to the north and south and in the southwest quadrant of CR 116 extending to the south. The proposed pedestrian improvements on Hackamore Road extend the full length of the project corridor from Medina Lake Drive to Brockton Lane N (CR 101). The proposed multi-use bituminous trail is 8-feet wide with a boulevard of varying width. Where the trail is adjacent to the roadway or at back of curb, the trail will be 10-feet wide to meet clear zone requirements. The use of a retaining wall at the eastern end of the project, near CR 101, is necessary to facilitate the vertical curve adjustments for State Aid standards and contain impacts within the existing ROW to the greatest extent possible. If the adjacent property is subdivided, the City of Corcoran may have the opportunity to request additional permanent easements and eliminate the retaining wall. K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx As part of the pedestrian and trail plans, crossing improvements are proposed at both CR 116 and CR 101, including push buttons on the signals and crosswalk markings. An uncontrolled pedestrian crossing is being considered near Hunter Drive. The final determination of the crossing location will be made during final design in consideration of the location of the future development accesses to the south of Hackamore Road and available right-of-way. Based on comments received from property owners and both City Councils, six-foot bituminous shoulders were included on the north and south sides of Hackamore Road to accommodate additional bicycle traffic. This is intended to reduce the conflict between pedestrians and bicycles that may occur on the multi-use trail on the north side of Hackamore Road. Intersection Improvements: In addition to the improvements on Hackamore Road, turn lane and intersection improvements are proposed on CR 116 and CR 101. Right turn lanes on CR 116 are proposed on the northbound and southbound directions to accommodate additional vehicular operations; additional northbound or southbound turn lanes on CR 101 are not proposed. Signal improvements at both Hennepin County intersections will be necessary due to the widening of Hackamore Road and the addition of improved pedestrian crossings. Roadway reconstruction is also proposed for the CR 47 approach to Hackamore Road, east of CR 101, to accommodate the revised traffic pattern and turn lanes. The City of Plymouth is currently working on the preliminary design for a larger CR 47 project as a part of the future turn-back process with Hennepin County. The project will include improvements up to and potentially including the intersection at CR 101. At this time, it is anticipated that the CR 47 improvements will be included with the City of Plymouth project. Further discussions between the cities will be needed to determine what portions of the intersection at CR 101 could be included with the CR 47 project and how the costs would be shared between each city. The improvements to CR 47 east of CR 101 have not been included with the cost estimate, but half of the CR 101 signal improvements were included. Street/Pavement Section: Two 10-ton street sections were proposed within the geotechnical report previously completed by Haugo Geotechnical Services in 2019. The first recommended section consisted of 6 ½ inches of bituminous over 18 inches of aggregate base, the second section consisted of 6 inches of bituminous, 10 inches of aggregate base, and 18 inches of select granular borrow sub-base. Both meet the granular equivalency requirements for the project. City staff determined that the most conservative option should be considered. With that in mind, the second street section was considered for 75% design and the cost estimations included with this memorandum. During final design, either a combination of both sections (depending on the prevailing underlying soil conditions) or utilize only the first street section option to further reduce the overall roadway costs of the project. In addition, where the soil borings indicated poor underlying conditions, excavation and replacement of the materials has been included with the cost estimate. The full report can be provided upon request. Full plan and profile sheets along with typical sections of the proposed roadway design are included in Appendices A & B, respectively. A full 75% plan set will be provided to the cities at the conclusion of this design phase. Sanitary Sewer & Watermain: There are no sanitary sewer or watermain improvements proposed as part of this project. The City of Corcoran is planning to install watermain between the Ravinia development, the future development east of CR 116, and the Tavera development as a future separate project. It is K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx likely that the watermain would be installed via directional drilling within easements along these developments and under the bituminous trail where easements cannot be obtained. Right-of-Way Considerations: Additional right-of-way and/or easements will need to be acquired from parcels identified for development due to the widening of Hackamore Road, the installation of pedestrian facilities on the north side of the roadway, and for the stormwater treatment ponds. The necessary right-of- way and/or easement acquisition needs have been minimized through the alignment and location of the trail and boulevard widths, and no permanent improvements are proposed on private property that is not identified as a future development site. However, grading will be necessary on many private properties and temporary easements will need to be acquired by the cities to accomplish this. No costs for temporary or permanent easement acquisition have been included in the estimates. Stormwater Management & Floodplain Impacts: Proposed stormwater improvements throughout the Hackamore Road reconstruction project include a combination of rural roadway sections, storm sewer within the urban roadway sections to meet State Aid requirements, and stormwater treatment areas to capture and retain stormwater in accordance with the City of Corcoran, the City of Medina, and Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) requirements. Impacts to the 100-year floodplain are not anticipated with this project. Under existing conditions, the north half of Hackamore Road discharges north into Corcoran and the south half discharges south into Medina. There are five existing centerline culverts that will be replaced in-kind with this project. The proposed design will generally maintain existing drainage/discharge patterns and balance BMP footprint between Medina and Corcoran. There are a few locations in the corridor where drainage patterns will need to be modified due to pending developments. Proposed drainage patterns and routing is shown on the drainage map in Appendix E. · The area shown in orange, west of CR 116 will be routed entirely to the pending Tavera development in Corcoran. · The area shown in blue, west of Hackamore Circle, will be routed entirely to a BMP on the north side of the road. This maintains the existing drainage patterns since there is an existing centerline culvert that conveys the road runoff in this location. · The area in green, east of Hackamore Circle, will be routed entirely to the Reserve and future development in Medina. · The drainage patterns to the east of Steeple Chase Lane remain the same as existing conditions, generally split by the roadway centerline. The project is required to meet rate control, volume control, and water quality requirements for the net increase in impervious surface area from the proposed improvements. A combination of best management practices (BMPs) are proposed to meet the stormwater requirements within adjacent developments. The drainage figure included in Appendix E illustrates where stormwater runoff from Hackamore Road will be routed and treated. Some of the ponding locations that are located further into pending developments have not been shown graphically. A preliminary HydroCAD model was built to analyze runoff rates from the project limits. As a linear project, the roadway corridor discharges off-site in multiple locations. Proposed runoff rates at each discharge point are less than or equal to existing runoff rates. The adjacent development BMPs will be utilized to provide rate control. To meet the volume control requirement, 1.1-inches of runoff must be abstracted from the net new impervious surface. In total, the project creates 4.44 acres of net new impervious surface, correlating to a required volume of 17,729 CF. Volume control is provided via the adjacent development BMPs. Retention volume will be provided via biofiltration as soils are not conducive K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx to infiltration. Abstraction will also be provided via irrigation reuse, particularly in the development areas. The developments will be responsible for sizing BMPs to adequately treat Hackamore Road runoff. The estimated volume with the future adjacent developments is 19,862 CF. ECWMC requires no net increase in total phosphorus or total suspended solids from existing to proposed conditions on an annual basis. The adjacent development BMPs will be utilized to meet water quality requirements. Permits/Approvals This project as proposed will result in disturbing more than one acre of underlying subgrade material, and therefore, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required. Because the proposed project will disturb more than 1 acre of land and create 1 or more acres of new impervious surface, an ECWMC permit is required prior to the commencement of construction. A pre-application meeting was held on April 23, 2020 with ECWMC and the cities of Medina and Corcoran to discuss the project intent and requirements. The minutes were included with the 30% memorandum and can be provided upon request. Proposed impervious surfaces will be routed to existing BMPs to the maximum extent possible to minimize project costs. In some cases, the proposed BMPs capture existing and new impervious surface area, accounting for new impervious areas that are unable to be captured or treated. ECWMC is amenable to this approach. ECWMC permit approval will likely include a contingency for phased construction of Hackamore concurrent with the construction of the adjacent developments. A permit from Hennepin County will also be needed for the work within the county right-of-way on both CR 101 and CR 116. If the cities propose to utilize State Aid funds, plan review and approval will also be required by MnDOT. Wetland impacts will occur as a result of the project. The project will require permitting through the Wetland Conservation Act, US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources, and ECWMC. Permit applications will be prepared after the 75% design is complete. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be required at a 2:1 ratio. The Board of Water and Soil Resources’ Local Road Replacement Program will be reviewed to determine if the project meets the requirements for replacement. It is anticipated that a majority of the wetland impacts will meet the requirements and will not require the cities to purchase wetland credits. For any impacts that do not meet the requirements, mitigation is recommended through the purchase of wetland credits as it is more cost-effective than on-site mitigation. In addition, there is little to no upland available within the existing right-of-way so on-site mitigation would need to be identified in an adjacent development. Private Utilities There are private utilities currently located within the proposed project area. Based on Gopher State One Call ticket information and the topographic survey, known utility owners include: · CenturyLink [Telephone] · Comcast [Internet/Television] · Wright Hennepin Coop [Communications] · CenterPoint Energy [Gas] · Xcel Energy [Gas/Electric] · Arvig [Fiber] · Mediacom [Fiber] · Zayo Group [Fiber] The roadway impacts to private utilities have been minimized to the greatest extent possible, but relocations will be necessary for utility poles and potentially some underground infrastructure. Known utility owners have been notified of the proposed improvements. A utility coordination K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx meeting was conducted on Thursday, May 20th, 2021 in which the 75% plans were provided to the private utility company representatives. The utility relocations are primarily needed to meet the State Aid requirement of a minimum 10- foot clear zone, measured from the edge of the outside through-traffic lane; Hackamore Road is classified as a “Suburban Undivided” roadway. A significant number of utility poles and sections of the existing gas main at the edge of the existing roadway do not meet the current clear zone requirements and will be in direct conflict with the trail, roadway, or proposed clear zone. Table 2: Private Utilities Utility Name Impacted (Based on GSOC Response) City of Corcoran City of Medina Available Franchise Agreement Corcoran Available Franchise Agreement Medina Century Link Yes Yes Yes No No Comcast NA NA NA Yes No Wright Hennepin Co-op Yes Yes Yes Yes No CenterPoint Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Xcel Energy Yes No Yes No Yes Arvig NA NA NA No No Mediacom Yes Yes Yes No Yes Zayo Group No No No No No 75% Plans As part of the 75% Design, a plan set has been created. The plans have been prepared to meet State Aid submission standards in preparation for potential funding during final design. The plans were also prepared to provide the information necessary for a submittal to the watershed district for stormwater management permitting at the conclusion of 75% design. Plan Set Inclusions: · Title Sheet · General Project Layout · Removal Plans · Street and Storm Sewer Plans · Stormwater Basin Plans · Signing and Striping Plans · Signal Improvement Plans · Erosion Control Plans · Cross Sections Exclusions: · Standard Details · Project Phasing Plans · Traffic Control Plans Additional plan sheets for project phasing, traffic control, standard details, or other more detailed design will be addressed during final design once funding and phasing of the project has been finalized. K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx Appendix A includes street and storm sewer plan and profile sheet excerpts from the full plan set. These sheets provide the proposed site layout and horizontal geometry and alignment, as well as the vertical alignment of Hackamore Road. A roll plot which depicts the entire corridor can be provided for reviewing upon request. Project Cost Estimates & Funding Opinion of Probable Cost: A detailed opinion of probable cost can be found in Appendix C of this report. The opinion of probable cost incorporates estimated 2022 construction costs and includes a 10% construction contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 25% of the construction cost and include engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. The table below provides a summary of the opinions of probable cost for the proposed improvements. Table 3: Estimated Project Cost Summary Description Estimated Project Cost Street Improvements $ 4,509,000 Trail Improvements $ 607,000 Wetland Mitigation $ 20,000 Storm Sewer Improvements $ 701,000 CR 116 Intersection Costs $ 585,000 CR 101 Signal Improvements $ 280,000 Grand Total for Project $ 6,702,000 The above costs in Table 4 are estimated costs for roadway, storm sewer, stormwater improvements, intersection improvements, and minor utility impacts. At this time, costs have not been reduced in consideration of the potential for adjacent development to share in the cost of trail and stormwater management improvements. The CR 101 signal improvements have been split in half, assuming a cost share with Plymouth and Maple Grove. Assumptions & Inclusions: · Right-of-way or other improvements associated with stormwater management improvements/ponding within adjacent future developments (meeting governing requirements) will be provided at no cost to the cities (negotiated with development agreements). · Costs to mitigate disturbances for proposed roadway improvements where pertinent, mitigation will occur through the purchase of wetland credits and not on-site mitigation. No contingency or overhead were included with the cost of the wetland credits. · Lighting and dynamic signage for the proposed crosswalk at Hunter. Exclusions: · Obtaining right-of-way for proposed improvements encroaching within single-family properties (costs are not anticipated). · Costs to mitigate wetlands within adjacent development for ponding needs. · The cost of stormwater treatment/ponding (rate or volume) even if shown on plans. K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx · Costs for private utility relocations after a review of the available franchise agreements provided by the cities. There may be costs associated with relocations if other franchise agreements exist that were not received. · Costs associated with improvements east of CR 101 along CR 47. · Lighting at proposed development intersections, developers will be responsible for costs. Potential Project Funding: Funding for the Hackamore Road improvements is proposed to come from a combination of City of Medina and City of Corcoran funds, and cost sharing agreements with adjacent development projects. Hackamore Road has been designated as a State Aid route by both cities. State Aid funding may be considered in the future, and design guidelines for State Aid roadways have been accounted for in the preparation of the proposed improvements. Special assessments to benefiting single-family property owners are not being proposed by either city at this time. Potential cost sharing agreement partners include Hennepin County for the work within the county road intersections and signals at CR 116 and CR 101. There is also a cost share opportunity for the portion of CR 47 east of CR 101 with Hennepin County, cities of Plymouth and Maple Grove that may also include all or a portion of the full intersection improvements. Lastly, a Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) grant application was submitted through MnDOT for the proposed improvements, at the time of this report the cities are waiting on a response on this grant award. Community Engagement & Agency Coordination During 30% design, City engineering staff met with the City of Plymouth, City of Maple Grove, and Hennepin County to discuss proposed improvements along Hackamore Road. The most critical portions of the project with respect to these agencies are the intersections at CR 116, and CR 101. To gather information from adjacent property owners a Virtual Open House meeting was held on May 19, 2020. Preliminary information was presented regarding the concept plans and impacts associated with the project. Approximately 20 residents were in attendance, as well as council members in both cities, city staff from both the City of Medina and the City of Corcoran, and WSB engineering representatives. Lastly, Social Pinpoint was used to gather additional information from property owners. The site included an interactive map to compare the existing conditions, Option 1, and Option 2, as well as a space to add comments on the various options. A summary of the meeting minutes and property owner feedback is included with the 30% Street Design Memorandum. Formal engagement with the cities of Plymouth, Maple Grove, and Hennepin County was not conducted during the 75% design phase. The City of Plymouth is currently in the preliminary stages of design for the turnback of CR 47. The improvements within this corridor are planned to be improved in multiple phases. For construction in 2022, The City is considering the portion from CR 47 to Peony Lane and may include improvements to the intersection of CR 101. Plymouth is planning to reach out to the project stakeholders, including the cities of Corcoran and Medina, in the coming weeks to discuss cost sharing opportunities. There may be an opportunity for cooperative project coordination and cost participation from all cities (Plymouth, Maple Grove, Corcoran, and Medina). Coordination with this project would also provide the potential for more cost-effective improvements for all cities. The City of Plymouth is planning to meet with all cities and Hennepin County prior to finalizing their improvement project. K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx Proposed Schedule Proposed construction for the improvements will likely occur in several phases, based on the progress of adjacent developments and/or other adjacent public projects (i.e. CR 47 turnback by the City of Plymouth). At the time final design commences, it is anticipated that schedules for the construction of adjacent developments in the City of Corcoran and the City of Medina would be known and the project could proceed at that time. Further discussion with all project stakeholders will need to occur with final design. Summary and Recommendation The Hackamore Road Improvement Project includes roadway, stormwater, intersection, signal, and pedestrian improvements from Medina Lake Drive to Brockton Lane N (CR 101). The existing roadway has been identified for improvements by both the City of Corcoran and the City of Medina due to the deteriorating pavement and the need to accommodate the additional traffic volumes with increased development in the area. The project design was initiated to address deteriorating and insufficient infrastructure, and to develop a cohesive plan that both cities can provide to adjacent property owners and developers to guide the transportation needs, right-of- way, and other anticipated infrastructure improvements. The current level of completion with 75% design provides the opportunity for the cities to further pursue funding mechanisms and cost share agreements with adjacent developers, cities of Maple Grove/Plymouth, Hennepin County, and pursue potential grant funding. The preparation of these plans for the proposed improvements is an important step in the planning for adjacent development access, including the necessary right-of-way, stormwater management connections/treatment, pedestrian facilities/connections, and the ability to implement the vision with potential phasing of construction as one large project or as smaller multiple projects involving various stakeholders. Based on the information provided in this memorandum and the input from staff in both cities, it is recommended that the 75% design vision for the Hackamore Road Improvement Project be considered for approval by both cities. Approval from the City Councils’ will not constitute an authorization for funding or construction of the project(s). It is recommended that staff and Councils in both cities plan for future funding discussions prior to consideration of final design, phasing, and timelines for the project. List of Figures and Appendices Appendix A – 75% Street & Storm Sewer Plans Appendix B – Typical Sections Appendix C – Detailed Opinion of Project Costs Appendix D – Traffic Analysis, Figures, Tables Appendix E – Drainage Map K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx Appendix A 75% Street & Storm Sewer Plans BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGTUGTUGT UGT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTOHE 99+00 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 50035002 5004 5001 500015"15"15"15"15" 8 10 PEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPETE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TETETETE970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 988.6988.3988.5988.7989.0989.6990.0990.2990.3990.2989.9989.4988.9988.6988.0987.4987.0988.62988.90989.18989.46989.74990.02990.27990.24989.88989.38988.88988.38987.88987.38986.89986.6199+00 99+50 100+00 100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION 0.56%-1.00%PVIS:98+75.07PVIE:988.48PVIS:102+37.26PVIE:990.51AD:1.56K:76.91120.00' VC BVCS:101+77.26BVCE:990.17EVCS:102+97.26EVCE:989.91HP STA:102+20.35HP ELEV:990.29 PVIS:106+50.00PVIE:986.38AD:1.50K:80.00120.00' VC BVCS:105+90.00BVCE:986.98PROPOSED CL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE 198' - 15" RCP CL V @ 0.50% 5002STA 100+90.31-25.05 LTRIM=989.21(48"Ø)INV: 984.13 (W)INV: 982.64 (E) 265' - 15" RCP CL V @ 0.50% 5003STA 103+55.62-29.67 LTRIM=988.76(48"Ø)INV: 981.31 (W)INV: 984.21 (S)INV: 981.21 (E) 287' - 15" RCP CL V @ 0.50% INV: 985.22 (S)INV: 985.12 (E) 5001STA 98+92.16-17.86 LTRIM=988.01(48"Ø)INV: 981.38 (E)INV: 981.08 (W)INV: 980.98 (N) 5005STA 103+82.53-30.05 LTRIM=988.70(48"Ø)74' - 15" RCP CL V @ 1.12% HACKAMORE ROAD LOCATION SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:43:30 AMN S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)MATCHLINE STA: 105+50SEE SHEET 12MATCHLINE STA: 105+50SEE SHEET 12WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 11 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS 4730 SETTLERS COURTLUKE & RACHELHAMMER 4777 MEDINA LAKEDRIVESCOTT A & PEGGYA WEAVER 20202 HACKAMORE RDRUTH M MCKOWN 4780 MEDINA LAKE DRIVEGEORGE & HEATHER ALLENDORPH MEDINA LAKE ROAD3' WIDE CURB CUTOVER EXISTINGCULVERT 3' WIDE CURB CUTOVER EXISTINGCULVERT B618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER PID 3511923430001LENNAR DEVELOPMENTTAVERA 1ST BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGEUGEUGEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHEOHEOHEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 110+00 111+00 112+00 5009 5008 5006 5007 501015"12"12"8 PEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPETE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TETETETETETETETE970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 988.0987.4987.0986.8986.6986.8987.0987.3987.7987.9988.1988.2988.4988.5988.4988.1987.8987.38986.89986.61986.64986.88987.13987.38987.63987.88988.13988.34988.47988.51988.47988.34988.13987.88106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50 109+00 109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+50 112+00 112+50 113+00 113+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION -1.00%0.50%-0.50% PVIS:111+50.00PVIE:988.88AD:1.00K:300.00300.00' VC BVCS:110+00.00BVCE:988.13EVCS:113+00.00EVCE:988.13HP STA:111+50.00HP ELEV:988.51 PVIS:106+50.00PVIE:986.38AD:1.50K:80.00120.00' VC BVCS:105+90.00BVCE:986.98EVCS:107+10.00EVCE:986.68LP STA:106+70.00LP ELEV:986.58 PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE 5007STA 106+69.61-34.55 LTRIM=986.58(48"Ø)INV: 982.92 (S)INV: 982.82 (W) HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:43:37 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 105+50SEE SHEET 11MATCHLINE STA: 112+50SEE SHEET 13MATCHLINE STA: 112+50SEE SHEET 13LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 12 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS 4780 MEDINA LAKE DRIVEGEORGE & HEATHER ALLENDORPH 4795 FOXBERRY DRIVEVINCENT L & JOYCE SHAYDEN FOXBERRY DRIVEB618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER PID 3511923410002LENNAR DEVELOPMENTTAVERA 1ST BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT UGT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT UGTUGTUGTUGTF/OF/OF/OF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O OHE OHE OHE OHEOHEOHEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE UGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 119+00 5011 5012 5103 5013 5101 5100 5102 12"12"15"24"8 8 PEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPETE TE TE TE TE TE TETETETETETETETETETE 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 988.4988.1987.8988.2987.7987.4987.1987.1987.2987.3987.5987.8988.3988.7989.6990.6991.5988.34988.13987.88988.18987.71987.43987.18987.08987.18987.43987.68987.93988.18988.65989.43990.43991.43113+00 113+50 114+00 114+50 115+00 115+50 116+00 116+50 117+00 117+50 118+00 118+50 119+00 119+50 120+00 120+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION -0.50%3.00%-3.00%-0.50%0.50% 2.00%PVIS:113+84.25PVIE:987.71PVIS:114+17.16PVIE:988.70PVIS:114+51.40PVIE:987.67PVIS:111+50.00PVIE:988.88AD:1.00K:300.00300.00' VC EVCS:113+00.00EVCE:988.13PVIS:116+00.00PVIE:986.93AD:1.00K:120.00120.00' VC BVCS:115+40.00BVCE:987.23EVCS:116+60.00EVCE:987.23LP STA:116+00.00LP ELEV:987.08 PVIS:119+00.00PVIE:988.43AD:1.50K:80.00120.00' VC BVCS:118+40.00BVCE:988.13EVCS:119+60.00EVCE:989.63PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE INV: 984.74 (N)INV: 984.74 (SW) 43' - 12" RCP CL V @ 0.56% 5103STA 115+37.06-36.76 LTRIM=986.54(48"Ø)INV: 982.35 (W) 72' - 24" RCP CL V @ 0.24% 5012STA 113+41.9024.22 RTRIM=987.22(48"Ø)5101STA 114+67.77-36.67 LTRIM=986.99(60"Ø)INV: 982.00 (E) INV: 981.79 (S)INV: 981.69 (N) 69' - 15" RCP CL V @ 0.50% HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:43:45 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 112+50SEE SHEET 12MATCHLINE STA: 119+50SEE SHEET 14MATCHLINESEE SHEET 22 MATCHLINESEE SHEET 22 MATCHLINE STA: 119+50SEE SHEET 14LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 13 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS 19800 HACKAMORE ROADLAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT CO LLCGONYEA PID 0111823220003DANIEL & JACALYN MILLEA 655 HACKAMORE ROADNANCY JEAN PID 0211823110024FOXBERRY FARMSHOMEOWNERS COUNTY ROAD 116 / PINTO DRIVEB618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER PID 3511923410002LENNAR DEVELOPMENTTAVERA 1ST BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00 124+00 125+00 126+00 Cut/Fill Summary Name VOL 2 EG COMBINE vs G-2 Totals Cut Factor 1.00 Fill Factor 1.00 2d Area 7590.02 Sq. Ft. 7590.02 Sq. Ft. Cut 1077.98 Cu. Yd. 1077.98 Cu. Yd. Fill 6.24 Cu. Yd. 6.24 Cu. Yd. 1 5 " 5104 8 10 8 PEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPEPETE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TETETETETETETE975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 989.6990.6991.5992.4993.3994.2995.0995.6996.2996.4996.4996.3995.9995.4995.0994.7994.5989.43990.43991.43992.43993.43994.43995.40996.14996.62996.85996.81996.52996.00995.46995.04994.78994.69120+00 120+50 121+00 121+50 122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 124+00 124+50 125+00 125+50 126+00 126+50 127+00 127+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION 2.00% -1.10% PVIS:123+75.00PVIE:997.93AD:3.10K:96.74300.00' VC BVCS:122+25.00BVCE:994.93EVCS:125+25.00EVCE:996.28HP STA:124+18.48HP ELEV:996.86 PVIS:119+00.00PVIE:988.43AD:1.50K:80.00120.00' VC EVCS:119+60.00EVCE:989.63PVIS:127+34.31PVIE:993.97AD:1.94K:154.98300.00' VC BVCS:125+84.31BVCE:995.62PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE 39' - 15" RCP CL V @ 0.50%INV: 990.50 (NW) 5104STA 122+05.34-36.68 LTRIM=993.83(2'X3')HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:43:52 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 119+50SEE SHEET 13MATCHLINE STA: 126+50SEE SHEET 15LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)MATCHLINE STA: 126+50SEE SHEET 15S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 14 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS 19800 HACKAMORE ROADLAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT CO LLCGONYEA 19710 HACKAMORE ROADLAKEVIEW DEVELOPMENT CO LLCGONYEA 655 HACKAMORE ROADNANCY JEAN 625 HACKAMOREROADHARRY A & ANGELA SDENNY B618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/OOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE OHE 127+00 128+00 129+00 130+00 131+00 132+00 133+00 989993992991990989 9 9 0 9 8 9 Fill 6.24 Cu. Yd. 6.24 Cu. Yd. Net 1071.74 Cu. Yd.<Cut> 1071.74 Cu. Yd.<Cut> 5201 520215"15"510515"5106 8 10 TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TETETETETETETETETETETETEPEPEPEPEPEPEPE PEPE 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 995.0994.7994.5994.6994.7995.1995.5996.1996.6997.2997.9998.7999.4999.91000.51001.51001.8995.04994.78994.69994.75994.98995.36995.78996.29996.93997.67998.41999.15999.901000.631001.231001.621001.88127+00 127+50 128+00 128+50 129+00 129+50 130+00 130+50 131+00 131+50 132+00 132+50 133+00 133+50 134+00 134+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION 0.83% 1.48% 0.50% PVIS:133+50.00PVIE:1001.38AD:0.98K:122.14 120.00' VC BVCS:132+90.00BVCE:1000.49EVCS:134+10.00EVCE:1001.68PVIS:127+34.31PVIE:993.97AD:1.94K:154.98300.00' VC EVCS:128+84.31EVCE:995.22LP STA:127+54.95LP ELEV:994.68 PVIS:130+00.00PVIE:996.19AD:0.65K:185.24120.00' VC BVCS:129+40.00BVCE:995.69EVCS:130+60.00EVCE:997.08PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE 5202STA 131+17.7925.10 RTRIM=995.57(48"Ø)46' - 15" RCP CL V @ 0.50% 5201STA 131+05.63-19.60 LTRIM=997.14(2'X3')INV: 992.94 (S)INV: 993.04 (NW)INV: 992.71 (N)INV: 992.71 (S) HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 WSB PROJECT NO.:REVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTIONK:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:44:00 AMN S.A.P. SHEET OF60 15 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RDIMPROVEMENTS PROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITYOF CORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XXMATCHLINE STA: 126+50SEE SHEET 14MATCHLINE STA: 133+50SEE SHEET 16MATCHLINE STA: 133+50SEE SHEET 16LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)6215 HACKAMORE CIRCLEFREDERICK J BENKUSKY 6210 HACKAMORE CIRCLEJOHN G & SHERRY A MORRILL 565 HACKAMOREROADRYAN M & APRILD LINDELL 545 HACKAMOREROADTIMOTHY JBEAURPE 435 HACKAMORE ROADMARILYN A LARSON PID 0111823210008PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA LLCTHE RESERVE OF MEDINAHACKAMORE CIRCLEB618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 134+00 135+00 136+00 137+00 138+00 139+00 140+00 5203 5204 5205 15"15"15" 15" 5206 10 10 TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025 1000.51001.51001.81001.91002.21002.41002.61002.91003.21003.31003.91004.11004.61005.21006.41007.51008.51001.231001.621001.881002.131002.381002.631002.881003.131003.381003.631003.881004.351005.131006.131007.131008.131009.13134+00 134+50 135+00 135+50 136+00 136+50 137+00 137+50 138+00 138+50 139+00 139+50 140+00 140+50 141+00 141+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION 0.50% 2.00% PVIS:133+50.00PVIE:1001.38AD:0.98K:122.14120.00' VC EVCS:134+10.00EVCE:1001.68PVIS:139+00.00PVIE:1004.13AD:1.50K:80.00120.00' VC BVCS:138+40.00BVCE:1003.83EVCS:139+60.00EVCE:1005.33PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE INV: 999.32 (E) 166' - 15" RCP CL V @ 0.50% INV: 998.49 (W)INV: 998.39 (S) 5204STA 138+92.43-29.68 LTRIM=1003.71(48"Ø)5203STA 137+26.70-29.68 LTRIM=1002.69(2'X3')HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:44:08 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 133+50SEE SHEET 15MATCHLINE STA: 140+50SEE SHEET 17MATCHLINE STA: 140+50SEE SHEET 17LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 16 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS 6205 HUNTER ROADJOSEPH & HANNA SMITH 19510 HACKAMORE ROADOLGA & SERGEY KARACHENETS 435 HACKAMORE ROADMARILYN A LARSON PID 0111823210008PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA LLCTHE RESERVE OF MEDINA PID 0111823120008WILD MEADOWS HMOWNRS ASC INCHUNTER ROADB618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGTUGTUGT UGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 141+00 142+00 143+00 144+00 145+00 146+00 147+00 5300 15"5301 15"10 10 TE TETE990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035 1006.41007.51008.51009.21009.61010.21010.31010.01009.51008.81007.51005.31003.51001.91000.3998.5996.61007.131008.131009.131010.081010.731011.021010.961010.541009.771008.691007.561006.221004.561002.691000.82998.94997.07141+00 141+50 142+00 142+50 143+00 143+50 144+00 144+50 145+00 145+50 146+00 146+50 147+00 147+50 148+00 148+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION 2.00%-2.25% -3.75% PVIS:143+25.00PVIE:1012.63AD:4.25K:70.59300.00' VC BVCS:141+75.00BVCE:1009.63EVCS:144+75.00EVCE:1009.25HP STA:143+16.18HP ELEV:1011.04 PVIS:146+00.00PVIE:1006.44AD:1.50K:80.00120.00' VC BVCS:145+40.00BVCE:1007.79EVCS:146+60.00EVCE:1004.19PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADE CL PROFILE HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:44:15 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 140+50SEE SHEET 16MATCHLINE STA: 147+50SEE SHEET 18MATCHLINE STA: 147+50SEE SHEET 18LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 17 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS RAVINIA 10TH ADDITION PID 0111823120008WILD MEADOWS HMOWNRS ASC INCPID 0111823120008WILD MEADOWS HMOWNRS ASC INC RAVINIA 10TH ADDITIONSTEEPLE CHASE LANEBERGAMOTDRIVEB618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER10' WIDE EXISTINGTRAIL EASEMENT BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 148+00 149+00 150+00 151+00 152+00 153+00 154+00 5302 5304 5305 15"15"54008 PE PETETETETETETETETETETETETETETETETETE 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 1010 1015 1000.3998.5996.6995.0993.2991.5990.0988.9987.9987.0985.9985.0984.0983.0982.0980.8979.61000.82998.94997.07995.19993.32991.67990.35989.24988.14987.04985.94984.84983.74982.64981.54980.44979.34148+00 148+50 149+00 149+50 150+00 150+50 151+00 151+50 152+00 152+50 153+00 153+50 154+00 154+50 155+00 155+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION -3.75% -2.20% PVIS:150+00.00PVIE:991.44AD:1.55K:77.39120.00' VC BVCS:149+40.00BVCE:993.69EVCS:150+60.00EVCE:990.12PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE INV: 991.00 (NE)INV: 994.36 (W)39' - 15" RCP CL V @ 2.00% 40' - 15" RCP CL V @ 3.00% 5304STA 148+37.49-68.27 LTRIM=996.94(48"Ø)INV: 990.22 (SW)INV: 984.21 (NE) 5302STA 148+17.69-34.78 LTRIM=997.66(48"Ø)HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:44:22 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 147+50SEE SHEET 17MATCHLINE STA: 154+50SEE SHEET 19LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)MATCHLINE STA: 154+50SEE SHEET 19S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 18 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS PID 0111823120008WILD MEADOWS HMOWNRS ASC INC PID 0111823120008WILD MEADOWS HMOWNRS ASC INC B618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER 10' WIDE EXISTINGTRAIL EASEMENT BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 155+00 156+00 157+00 158+00 159+00 160+00 161+00 977 976 975 974 973 973OCS 972972 973974 975 975 977976975974973972 5402 5406 1 2 "24" 5401 5403 5413 5415 12" 5405 15"8 PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE TE TE TETETETETETE960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 982.0980.8979.6978.6978.0977.6977.3976.9976.6976.5976.6977.1979.0982.3982.5984.0984.4981.54980.44979.34978.36977.59977.05976.74976.65976.79977.04977.35978.12979.40981.11982.49983.30983.54155+00 155+50 156+00 156+50 157+00 157+50 158+00 158+50 159+00 159+50 160+00 160+50 161+00 161+50 162+00 162+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION -2.20% 0.50% 3.60% PVIS:162+60.27PVIE:986.90AD:7.85K:43.95345.00' VC BVCS:160+87.77BVCE:980.69HP STA:162+45.98HP ELEV:983.54 PVIS:157+00.20PVIE:976.04AD:2.70K:111.14300.00' VC BVCS:155+50.20BVCE:979.34EVCS:158+50.20EVCE:976.79LP STA:157+94.64LP ELEV:976.65 PVIS:160+00.27PVIE:977.54AD:3.10K:48.39150.00' VC BVCS:159+25.27BVCE:977.17EVCS:160+75.27EVCE:980.24PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE 5402STA 157+98.16-31.53 LTRIM=975.67(48"Ø)INV: 974.00 (NW)INV: 974.10 (W) 37' - 12" RCP CL V @ 0.54% 66' - 15" RCP CL V @ 0.50% INV: 978.33 (S) 5407STA 161+64.12-36.67 LTRIM=982.06(48"Ø)HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:44:28 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 154+50SEE SHEET 18MATCHLINE STA: 161+50SEE SHEET 20LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)MATCHLINE STA: 161+50SEE SHEET 20S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 19 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS 19220 HACKAMORE ROAD GREGORY S & JACKIE A HOGLUND 19200 HACKAMORE ROADHOMELAND INVSTMNTS LLC ETAL PID 0111823110014WILD MEADOWS HMOWNRS ASC INC B618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER PREFERRED ALTERNATETRAIL ALIGNMENT BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT UGT F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE 162+00 163+00 164+00 165+00 166+00 167+00 5407 5408 5412 5411 540915"24"10 5410 PE PE PE PE PE PE PE PE TE TE TE TE TE TE TETE TE TETETETETETETE960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 982.5984.0984.4984.0982.8980.7978.5976.7975.2974.0973.1972.9972.8971.7970.7969.6982.49983.30983.54983.21982.31980.84978.84976.85975.28974.14973.43972.96972.90971.82970.72969.63968.53162+00 162+50 163+00 163+50 164+00 164+50 165+00 165+50 166+00 166+50 167+00 167+50 168+00 168+50 169+00 169+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION -4.25% -1.15%2.00%-2.00% -2.19%PVIS:166+96.63PVIE:972.89PVIS:167+23.62PVIE:973.43PVIS:167+53.62PVIE:972.83PVIS:162+60.27PVIE:986.90AD:7.85K:43.95345.00' VC EVCS:164+32.77EVCE:979.57HP STA:162+45.98HP ELEV:983.54 PVIS:165+50.27PVIE:974.58AD:3.10K:58.06180.00' VC BVCS:164+60.27BVCE:978.40EVCS:166+40.27EVCE:973.54PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE 72' - 24" RCP CL V @ 0.15% INV: 968.76 (W) 5412STA 166+38.52-29.67 LTRIM=972.79(2'X3')24' - 15" RCP CL V @ 1.00% INV: 963.49 (S)INV: 963.49 (N)INV: 968.52 (E) 5410STA 166+14.45-29.67 LTRIM=973.81(48"Ø)SUMP: 960.49 HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:44:34 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 161+50SEE SHEET 19MATCHLINE STA: 167+50SEE SHEET 21LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)MATCHLINE STA: 167+25SEE SHEET 21S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 20 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS 19200 HACKAMORE ROADHOMELAND INVSTMNTS LLC ETAL PID 0111823110014WILD MEADOWS HMOWNRS ASC INC COUNTY ROAD 101 / BROCKTON LANEB618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER B618 CONCRETECURB & GUTTER PREFERRED ALTERNATE TRAIL ALIGNMENT BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENT UGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/OOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHTOHT F/OF/OF/OF/OF/OF/OF/OOHE 168+00 169+00 170+00 171+00 172+00 173+00 960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1005 973.1972.9972.8971.7970.7969.6973.43972.96972.90971.82970.72969.63968.53967.44966.51965.81965.34965.10965.10965.33965.63167+00 167+50 168+00 168+50 169+00 169+50 170+00 170+50 171+00 171+50 172+00 172+50 173+00 173+50 174+00 174+50 PROPOSEDCL ELEVATIONEXISTINGCL ELEVATION PROPOSEDCL PROFILE EXISTINGCL PROFILE PROPOSEDSUBGRADECL PROFILE HACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:44:41 AMN MATCHLINE STA: 167+25SEE SHEET 20LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 21 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS LAYOUT SHOWN FOR REFERENCEONLY. PLYMOUTH-LED PROJECTEXPECTED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN2022. BITUMINOUS ROAD AND TRAIL LEGEND PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER DES. B618 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BITUMINOUS EDGE CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED RCP STORM SEWER GRADING LIMITS PE APPROX. PERMANENT EASEMENT TE APPROX. TEMPORARY EASEMENTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTUGTF/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/O F/OF/OF/OOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEUGEUGEUGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGE UGEOHE OHEOHEOHE113+00114+00115+0050115012 5013 51015100 5102 12" 1 2 "15"24"PEPEPEPEPETETETEHACKAMORE ROAD SCALE IN FEET 0 H: 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 V: 5 10 K:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-STRT-PLAN.dwg 5/13/2021 11:44:46 AMNMATCHLINE STA 113+00SEE SHEET 13 MATCHLINE STA 115+00SEE SHEET 13 LOCATION CITYOFMEDINA CITYOFCORCORAN CITYOFMAPLEGROVE CITYOFPLYMOUTHFOXBERRY DRCR-116 (PINTO DR)SETTLERS R DSNYDER RDHACKAMORECIRHUNTER RDBERGAMOTDRCR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)HACKAMORE RD HACKA M O R E R D CR-116 (PINTO DR)CR-101 (BROCKTON LN N)S.A.P.XXX-XXX-XXX C.P. XXXX-XX WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTION60 22 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANSTREET & STORM SEWER PLANS K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx Appendix B Typical Sections Hackamore Road Typical Sections 8' Trail 5' Blvd (Min.) 11' Thru Lane 11' Thru Lane 6' Shoulder, Rural Edge 10' Trail 8' Trail 6' Shoulder, Conc. Curb 6' Shoulder, Rural Edge 11' Thru Lane 11' Thru Lane 11' Thru Lane 11' Thru Lane 6' Shoulder, Conc. Curb 6' Shoulder, Conc. Curb 6' Shoulder, Conc. Curb 5' Blvd (Min.) 12' Turn Lane 12' Turn Lane 11' Turn Lane WSB PROJECT NO.: SHEET C.P.OFREVISIONSNO.DATEDESCRIPTIONK:\015661-000\Cad\Plan\015661-000-C-TYPSECT.dwg 5/13/2021 11:39:55 AM60 4 015661-000 SCALE: PLAN BY: DESIGN BY: CHECK BY: AS SHOWN MPM JLS GMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.LIC. NO:DATE:JAMES L. STREMEL05/18/202145782HACKAMORE RD IMPROVEMENTSPROJECTCITY OF MEDINA AND CITY OFCORCORANTYPICAL SECTIONS XXXX-XX 11' THRU LANE 11' THRU LANE 6' SHOULDER 6' SHOULDER 46.67' SECTION 11' THRU LANE 12' LEFT TURN LANE OR STRIPED MEDIAN 63.67' SECTION 11' THRU LANE 1 1/2 1' SEE INSET A CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.) B618 HACKAMORE ROAD (WITH RIGHT AND LEFT TURN LANES) 1 1/2 1' 1:4 M A X . 1:4 M A X. 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND TURF, AS SPECIFIED RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.) B618 SEE INSET A HACKAMORE ROAD (STANDARD SECTION) 10" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 OR RECYCLED EQUAL (MNDOT 3138) APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH MIN., "SUBGRADE PREPARATION") INSET A 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C) (SPNWB330C) 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C) (SPWEB340C) 6" CL 5 AGGREGATE BASE OR RECYCLED EQUAL (MNDOT 3138) (INCIDENTAL) 3" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (SPWEA240B) APPROVED SUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL) INSET B 2' SHLDR 8' BIT. TRAIL SEE INSET B BITUMINOUS TRAIL 1:4 MA X . 1:4 M A X . 6' BOULEVARD STA 113+90 - STA 117+00 STA 161+50 - STA 173+00 11' THRU LANE 12' LEFT TURN LANE OR STRIPED MEDIAN 58.67' SECTION 11' THRU LANE 6' SHOULDER 10.67' BIT. TRAIL INCL. CURB BACK 1 1/2 1'SEE INSET A SEE INSET B CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.) B618 BITUMINOUS TRAIL 1:4 MAX . 1:4 M A X . SEE INSET B STA 98+75 TO 102+00 STA 124+00 TO 135+00 STA 147+60 TO 158+50 HACKAMORE ROAD (LEFT TURN LANE OR CENTER STRIPED MEDIAN) STA 117+00 TO 124+00 (RIGHT TURN LANE FROM STA 122+00 TO 124+00) STA 135+00 TO 147+60 (RIGHT TURN LANE FROM STA 145+60 TO 147+60) STA 158+50 TO 161+50 HACKAMORE ROAD ALTERNATE TRAIL TYPICAL SECTION 6' SHOULDER 6' SHOULDER 2' GRAVEL SHOULDER 1:4 M A X . 1:4 M A X. 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND TURF, AS SPECIFIED RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS 1:4 M A X . 1:4 M A X. 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND TURF, AS SPECIFIED RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS 2' GRAVEL SHOULDER 2' GRAVEL SHOULDER 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (NON-WOVEN, MNDOT 3733 TYPE V) OVER 2' SHLDR 8' BIT. TRAIL SEE INSET B BITUMINOUS TRAIL 1:4 MA X . 1:4 M A X . 10' DITCH HACKAMORE ROAD ALTERNATE DITCH SECTION 2.0% 18" SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (MNDOT 3149) 2.5" TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C) (SPNWB330C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 10.67' BIT. TRAIL INCL. CURB BACK SEE INSET B BITUMINOUS TRAIL 1:4 MAX . 1:4 M A X . SEE INSET B 2.0% 10.67' BIT. TRAIL INCL. CURB BACK SEE INSET B BITUMINOUS TRAIL 1:4 MAX . 1:4 M A X . SEE INSET B 2.0% 11' THRU LANE 11' THRU LANE 6' SHOULDER 6' SHOULDER 48.67' SECTION 1 1/2 1' CURB AND GUTTER (TYP.) B618 SEE INSET A HACKAMORE ROAD (URBAN SECTION) STA 98+75 TO 113+90* 2.0%2.0% 8' BIT. TRAIL SEE INSET B BITUMINOUS TRAIL 1:4 MA X . 1:4 M A X . SEE INSET B 6' BLVD INCL. CURB BACK 1:4 M A X . 1:4 M A X. *STA 102+00 TO STA 103+75 INCLUDES LEFT TURN LANE *STA 103+75 TO STA 113+90 INCLUDES RIGHT AND LEFT TURN LANE OR STRIPED MEDIAN STA 124+20 TO STA 129+85 STA 147+60 TO STA 158+50 2.0% 11' RIGHT TURN LANE K:\015661-000\Admin\Docs\75% Design Memos\1. 75% Hackamore Design Memo - Medina - Final Draft 051321.docx Appendix C Detailed Opinion of Project Costs WSB Project:Hackamore Drive Option 2 Design By:LME Project Location:Medina, MN & Corcoran, MN Checked By:JLS City Project No.: WSB Project No:015661-00 Date:5/12/2021 Item No. MnDOT Specification No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 156,200.00$ 156,200.00$ 2 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.5 30,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 3 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.5 30,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 4 2104.503 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER L F 138 6.00$ 828.00$ 5 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY S Y 201 12.00$ 2,412.00$ 6 2104.504 REMOVE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY S Y 232 8.00$ 1,856.00$ 7 2104.504 REMOVE SIGN EACH 10 50.00$ 500.00$ 8 2104.504 REMOVE MAILBOX EACH 14 50.00$ 700.00$ 9 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)L F 454 3.00$ 1,362.00$ 10 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 40771 2.00$ 81,542.00$ 11 2106.507 EMBANKMENT - COMMON C Y 14602 9.00$ 131,418.00$ 12 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 33687 16.00$ 538,992.00$ 13 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 20386 24.00$ 489,264.00$ 14 2106.507 EXCAVATION - MUCK C Y 8590 18.00$ 154,620.00$ 15 2106.507 GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 859 24.00$ 20,616.00$ 16 2112.519 SUBGRADE PREPARATION RDST 68 300.00$ 20,400.00$ 17 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 30 175.00$ 5,250.00$ 18 2131.506 CALCIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION GAL 9531 2.50$ 23,827.50$ 19 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 5943 30.00$ 178,290.00$ 20 2215.504 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION S Y 20618 3.50$ 72,163.00$ 21 2231.603 BITUMINOUS RAMPING LF 5848 1.25$ 7,310.00$ 22 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 3530 3.00$ 10,590.00$ 23 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 3142 77.00$ 241,934.00$ 24 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 9424 74.00$ 697,376.00$ 25 2502.541 4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 5848 16.00$ 93,568.00$ 26 2502.602 4" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT EACH 17 550.00$ 9,350.00$ 27 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 6141 16.00$ 98,256.00$ 28 2540.602 INSTALL MAIL BOX SUPPORT EACH 14 75.00$ 1,050.00$ 29 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 30 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN PANEL EACH 24 300.00$ 7,200.00$ 31 2564.518 SIGN PANELS TYPE C S F 216 60.00$ 12,960.00$ 32 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LS 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 33 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 22 200.00$ 4,400.00$ 34 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS L F 3382 2.50$ 8,455.00$ 35 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER L F 6763 2.50$ 16,907.50$ 36 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE ROCK L F 1691 8.00$ 13,528.00$ 37 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 910 28.00$ 25,480.00$ 38 2575.504 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 S Y 2067 4.00$ 8,268.00$ 39 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 8266 2.00$ 16,532.00$ 40 2575.504 SODDING TYPE LAWN S Y 3153 9.00$ 28,379.70$ 41 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 188 8.00$ 1,504.00$ 42 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 1.80 4,000.00$ 7,200.00$ 43 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE MULTI COMP L F 17684 1.00$ 17,684.00$ 44 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE MULTI COMP L F 1000 2.00$ 2,000.00$ 45 2582.503 4" DBLE SOLID LINE MULTI COMP L F 10073 0.75$ 7,554.75$ 46 2582.518 CROSSWALK MULTI COMP S F 720 8.00$ 5,760.00$ 47 2582.518 PAVT MSSG MULTI COMP S F 585 4.00$ 2,340.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 3,279,327.45$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)327,932.75$ SUBTOTAL 3,607,260.20$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%)901,815.05$ TOTAL 4,509,000.00$ WETLAND MITIGATION COST 20,000.00$ OPINION OF PROBABLE COST A. Roadway Costs 48 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 21,100.00$ 21,100.00$ 49 2101.505 CLEARING ACRE 0.3 20,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 50 2101.505 GRUBBING ACRE 0.3 15,000.00$ 4,500.00$ 51 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS TRAIL S Y 141.0 5.00$ 705.00$ 52 2104.518 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK S F 90 4.00$ 360.00$ 53 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 6634 2.00$ 13,268.00$ 54 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 1106 16.00$ 17,696.00$ 55 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 1156 30.00$ 34,680.00$ 56 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 6333 30.00$ 189,990.00$ 57 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 1350 15.00$ 20,250.00$ 58 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 224 55.00$ 12,320.00$ 59 2540.618 RETAINING WALL S F 425 75.00$ 31,875.00$ 60 2557.603 CHAINLINK SAFETY FENCE L F 170 100.00$ 17,000.00$ 61 2564.601 CROSSWALK SIGNAGE AND LIGHTING L S 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 62 2574.507 BOULEVARD TOPSOIL BORROW C Y 827 30.00$ 24,810.00$ 63 2575.504 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 4 S Y 7515 2.00$ 15,030.00$ 64 2575.508 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 LB 171 8.00$ 1,368.00$ 65 2575.604 SEEDING SPECIAL ACRE 2.1 5,000.00$ 10,500.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 441,452.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)44,145.20$ SUBTOTAL 485,597.20$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%)121,399.30$ TOTAL 607,000.00$ 66 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 20,900.00$ 20,900.00$ 67 2104.502 REMOVE STORM SEWER L F 762 10.00$ 7,620.00$ 68 2104.502 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 3 750.00$ 2,250.00$ 69 2105.601 DEWATERING L S 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 70 2130.610 UTILITY CREW HOUR 10 800.00$ 8,000.00$ 71 2451.607 PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL C Y 851 16.00$ 13,616.00$ 72 2501.502 12" PIPE APRON EACH 2 300.00$ 600.00$ 73 2501.502 15" PIPE APRON EACH 5 350.00$ 1,750.00$ 74 2501.502 24" PIPE APRON EACH 7 500.00$ 3,500.00$ 75 2503.503 12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 323 68.00$ 21,964.00$ 76 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 2380 72.00$ 171,360.00$ 77 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V L F 29 90.00$ 2,610.00$ 78 2503.503 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III L F 280 110.00$ 30,800.00$ 79 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY (STORM)EACH 16 800.00$ 12,800.00$ 80 2506.502 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN H EACH 4 1,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 81 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 L F 126 650.00$ 81,900.00$ 82 2506.503 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 60-4020 L F 10 800.00$ 8,000.00$ 83 2506.602 CONST DRAINATE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPEC (2'X3')EACH 11 3,000.00$ 33,000.00$ 84 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS III C Y 70 120.00$ 8,400.00$ 85 2511.507 RANDOM RIP RAP CLASS IV C Y 84 160.00$ 13,440.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 448,510.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)112,127.50$ SUBTOTAL 560,637.50$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%)140,159.38$ TOTAL 701,000.00$ C. Storm Sewer Improvements B. Trail Improvements 86 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 17,500.00$ 17,500.00$ 87 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S Y 156 3.00$ 468.00$ 88 2104.603 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)L F 700 3.00$ 2,100.00$ 89 2105.504 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V S Y 619 2.00$ 1,238.00$ 90 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE C Y 481 16.00$ 7,696.00$ 91 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV)C Y 524 24.00$ 12,576.00$ 92 2211.509 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 C Y 157 30.00$ 4,710.00$ 93 2357.506 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 23 5.00$ 115.00$ 94 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 53 30.00$ 1,590.00$ 95 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 40 100.00$ 4,000.00$ 96 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (3,C)TON 120 92.00$ 11,040.00$ 97 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 96 16.00$ 1,536.00$ 98 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 450 15.00$ 6,750.00$ 99 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 48 55.00$ 2,640.00$ 100 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE PAINT L F 924 1.00$ 924.00$ 101 2582.518 PAVT MSSG PAINT S F 60 4.00$ 240.00$ 102 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 425,123.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)42,512.30$ SUBTOTAL 467,635.30$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%)116,908.83$ TOTAL 585,000.00$ 103 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS 1 8,800.00$ 8,800.00$ 104 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,C) - TRAIL S Y 35 30.00$ 1,050.00$ 105 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618 L F 170 16.00$ 2,720.00$ 106 2531.504 6" CONCRETE WALK S F 300 15.00$ 4,500.00$ 107 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES S F 32 55.00$ 1,760.00$ 108 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L S 1 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 109 2565.601 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS 1 175,000.00$ 175,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 203,830.00$ CONTINGENCY TOTAL (10%)20,383.00$ SUBTOTAL 224,213.00$ INDIRECT COST TOTAL (25%)56,053.25$ TOTAL 280,000.00$ D. Intersection Costs - CR 116 E. Intersection Costs - CR 101 - Half of Signal System Costs Only STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10a. Council Meeting: May 26, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Ravinia Encroachment Agreement Action Required: Discussion Summary: The City has been working with Lennar and the Tabors related to screening between Ravinia 13th Addition and the Tabor parcel. In the fall staff met on site with both parties to review screening options. Staff and the property owners met again in April to discuss screening options. Lennar has proposed a boulder wall and fence along the property line. Staff would generally be supportive of the plan as drafted with the following items: •Extending the fence to the south end of the right of way. We would need to get City Council approval and draft an encroachment agreement. •Build the right of way area between the end of the temporary cul de sac and the property line to address drainage. •Add gutters along the parallel roof edge. In reviewing the proposal, a six-foot-high fence would not be allowed to the front property line. Lennar would need to complete a PUD Amendment to allow for the screening. Staff has drafted an encroachment agreement that is included in the packet and is in for legal review. Should there be recommended changes from the attorney, staff will provide them at the meeting. Financial/Budget: N/A Options: 1.Authorize staff to execute an encroachment agreement for the construction of a fence as proposed upon passage of a PUD Amendment. 2.Send back to staff for further review. 3.Decline to move forward with an encroachment agreement. Recommendation: Staff is supportive of the plan with the encroachment agreement, build up of the end of the road, and gutters. Council Action: Authorize staff to execute an encroachment agreement for the construction of a fence as proposed upon passage of a PUD Amendment. Page 2 Attachments: 1. Screening Proposal 2. Draft Encroachment Agreement ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) made this _______day of _______________________, 2022, entered into by and between the City of Corcoran ("Grantor"), and U.S. Home Corporation dba Lennar, ("Grantees"). Grantor and Grantees are sometimes referred to herein as the “parties”. RECITALS A. Grantor owns public right-of-way within Ravinia 13th Addition which runs to the western edge of the property legally described as, Northwest 1/4 of Northeast 1/4, Section 36, Township 119, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota and currently established as Black Oak Lane (the “City Right-of-Way”); and B. Grantees desire to construct and maintain a fence that would encroach upon the eastern 10 feet of the City Right-of-Way as described in Exhibit A and as depicted in Exhibit B (the “Fence Encroachment Area”); and C. Grantor is willing to permit the construction and maintenance of said fence within the Fence Encroachment Area, on certain conditions expressed below. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by both parties, it is agreed as follows: 1. Grant of Encroachment Permission. Grantor hereby grants to Grantees, their agents, employees, engineers, contractors, heirs and assigns permission to enter upon and use the Fence Encroachment Area, as described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, for property screening purposes, conditioned upon receipt of all required permits. The fence shall proceed perpendicular from the north edge of City Right-of-Way to the south edge of City Right-of-Way as depicted in Exhibit B and approved by a City fence permit. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date appearing above the ("Effective Date") and shall continue until terminated, in writing, by either party. 2. Indemnification. Grantees shall defend, indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, costs, damages, liens and liabilities, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, (collectively "Claims") arising from or related to Grantor’s execution of this Agreement, any potential subsequent approval of a fence permit proposing to construct a fence within the Fence Encroachment Area, or Grantees’ or any other third party’s use or occupancy of the Fence Encroachment Area. This provision of indemnification shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 3. Attorneys’ Fees. Should either party commence an action against the other to enforce any obligation under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees from the other, whether or not such action is pursued to judgment. 4. Restoration. Upon the termination of the Agreement and/or the end of Grantees’ use of the Fence Encroachment Area for the purposes of screening, and unless otherwise agree upon, in writing, by Grantor, Grantees shall restore the Fence Encroachment Area to its condition prior to the construction of the fence including, but not limited to, removal of all structures, footings, equipment and debris and restoration of the Fence Encroachment Area where it has been disturbed. Should Grantees fail to restore the Fence Encroachment Area as contemplated in this paragraph within 30 days of receiving notice to do so, Grantor may restore the Fence Encroachment Area and assess the costs of restoration to the Grantees. Grantees hereby waive any appeal to such assessment. 5. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by providing 60 days’ written notice to the other party. The terminating party shall be responsible for recording notice of that termination with Hennepin County within 60 days of the termination. The parties agree that any fence permit which is approved by Grantor and which contemplates the use of the Fence Encroachment Area for screening purposes shall be deemed revoked and of no further effect upon termination of this Agreement. Grantees acknowledge that Grantor has granted the encroachment rights herein contingent upon the parties’ mutual agreement to this revocation of any affected fence permit on the Property. Further, in the event that this agreement is terminated, the Grantees agree to remove or otherwise bring into compliance with Corcoran City Code the portion of fence located in the front yard on lot 05, block 07, Ravinia 13th Addition, Hennepin County Minnesota. The Grantees shall enter into an agreement with said property owner which grants these rights. 6. Ownership and Maintenance. Grantees shall not have any ownership interest in the Fence Encroachment Area or the City Right-of-Way, but Grantees shall be the sole responsible party for the fence within the Fence Encroachment Area. Grantees shall be exclusively obligated to maintain the fence and shall bear all costs of maintenance, repair, or replacement, including, but not limited to, maintenance of landscaping, grass, or weeds in compliance with Corcoran City Code. Further, Grantees shall not encumber, nor allow to be encumbered, any portion of the Fence Encroachment Area. 7. Grantor’s Right-of-Way Rights Superior. The parties agree that Grantor’s Right-of- Way use rights shall be superior to those rights conveyed via this Agreement. At any time during this Agreement, Grantor may remove all or a portion of the fence within the Fence Encroachment Area or City Right-of-Way. Grantor shall have no obligation to repair or restore the fence. 8. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota and may only be amended in writing. Any action to enforce rights or obligations contained within this Agreement shall be brought in Hennepin County. 9. Agreement to Run with the Land. All of the rights and obligations contained within this Agreement shall run with the land and be binding upon Grantees and their heirs and assigns. All of the rights and obligations contained within this Agreement shall also be binding upon Grantor and its assigns. 10. Recitals. The above listed recitals are made a part of this Agreement as if set forth fully herein. 11. Survival. Should any portion of this Agreement be found to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining terms of this Agreement. 12. Authority. Grantees hereby represent and warranty that they have full authority to enter into the terms of this Agreement. Grantees further agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Grantor from and against any Claims brought by interested third parties related to this Agreement or Grantees’ authority claimed within this paragraph. 13. No Permit Approval. The City’s execution of this Agreement shall indicate the City’s limited and qualified approval of the encroachment described herein and shall in no way bind the same to issue any fence permit. The parties agree that the City retains full discretion to approve or deny any permit application related to the Property, including, without limitation, a fence permit application which proposes to utilize the Fence Encroachment Area. The parties hereto shall be deemed to have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above. [Signatures on pages to follow] GRANTEES Date: _____________ _________________________ Lennar rep., its “title” STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _____ day of _____________, 2022, before me personally appeared Lennar rep, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and deed. ____________________ Notary Public GRANTOR Date______________ ____________________________ Its Mayor Date______________ ____________________________ Its City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _________ day of ____________, 2022, Tom McKee, the Mayor and Jessica Beise, the City Administrator of the City of Corcoran, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of said municipal corporation. __________________________________________ Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CITY OF CORCORAN 8200 County Road 116 Corcoran, MN 55340 EXHIBIT A (“Fence Encroachment Area”) That portion of Grantor’s Right-of-Way which extends from the eastern edge of the established Black Oak Lane and travels directly west 10 feet. EXHIBIT B (“Fence Encroachment Area” Depiction) STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 10b. Council Meeting: May 26, 2022 Prepared By: Jessica Beise Topic: Potential Sale of City Land Action Required: Discussion Summary: The City has received a request from a resident to purchase a property in the Snyder Road, Trail Lane, Valley View Road neighborhood. The request is to purchase PID 35- 119-23-42-0035 which is currently a 1-acre parcel that was platted as part of the Snyders Rolling Hills 3rd Addition plat. Staff has reviewed the parcel data. The parcel was platted. The lot houses a large portion of a drainage pond. Staff feels if an easement is granted for access to the parcel for maintenance of the drainage pond, the city would not need to retain the parcel. The purchaser has provided background on the request and the intention behind purchasing the land. Financial/Budget: If a sale were supported, staff would require an escrow complete an appraisal of the land. Following the appraisal of land, we’d negotiate a sale price and enter into a purchase agreement. Staff would recommend that costs associated with the sale would be borne by the purchaser. Options: 1. Provide feedback and if supported direct staff to begin the process to purchase PID 35-119-23-42-0035. 2. Send back to staff for further review. 3. Decline to sell PID 35-119-23-42-0035. Recommendation: If an easement is obtained for pond maintenance and the costs associated with the sale are borne by the purchaser, staff would be supportive of a sale. Council Action: Provide feedback and if supported direct staff to begin the process to purchase PID 35- 119-23-42-0035. Attachments: 1. Ariel of the City Property 2. Request from the Adjacent Property Owner to Purchase PID 35-119-23-42-0035 Page 2 1 Jessica Beise From:Barry Bredahl <skidoobarry@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 11, 2022 9:21 PM To:Jessica Beise Subject:City property Hello City Counsel, My name is Barry Bredahl and I live at the property of 6403 valley view rd. I’m interested in buying the city property that connects to mine on the west. I would like to purchase the property from the city due to the fact that I would like to increase my lot size. I have been maintaining the property by spraying for weeds and mowing that property since 2015. Thanks Barry Sent from my iPhone Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 1 MEMORANDUM 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: 612-252-9070 Fax: 612-252-9077 www.landform.net DATE May 17, 2022 TO Jessica Beise, Natalie Davis McKeown CC City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Trails Commission FROM Kendra Lindahl, City Planner RE Active Corcoran Planning Applications Projects/Comments in blue italics are new The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects: 1.Pioneer Trail Industrial Park (formerly Highway 55 Business Park) (PID 32-119-23-34-0013, 32- 119-23-34-0007, 32-119-23-43-0005 and 32-119-23-43-0006) (city file no. 21-047). The City Council reviewed a concept plan on November 22, 2021 and indicated support. Staff has been preparing an EAW for the site. The City Council reviewed and provided comment on a second concept on February 24th. The City Council will review the EAW and make a notice of decision at the May 26th meeting. 2.NE District Plan and Design Guidelines (City file 21-050). The City received a planning grant from Hennepin County. Staff held a two open houses for public information. The draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their April 7th meeting. The public hearing was held May 5th at the Planning Commission and is scheduled for City Council action on May 26th. The moratorium is set to expire on June 10, 2022. 3.PUD Sketch Plan and EAW for “Corcoran Farms Business Park” at 20130 Larkin Road (PID 26- 119-23-13-0006) (city file no. 22-006). The applicant has submitted a sketch plan for five industrial buildings totally 726,396 sq. ft. They are requesting a PUD to allow reduced setbacks. The City Council reviewed and provided comment on February 24th. Staff is drafting the EAW and the City Council is expected to order distribution of the draft EAW for review and comment at the May 26th Council meeting. 4.PUD Final Plan and Final Plat for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition (city file no. 22-012). The applicant has submitted an application for 106 units (29 single family detached homes, 16 twin homes, 24 villa homes and 27 townhomes). The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council approved the application on April 28th. 5.Preliminary Plat and Variance for “Kariniemi Meadows” at 23185 CR 10 (PID 18-119-23-11- 0002) (city file no. 22-013). The applicant has submitted an application for approval of a 10 lot residential subdivision. The item was reviewed at the March 17th Parks and Trails Commission, a public hearing was held at the May 5th Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on May 26th. 6.Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for Pulte for “Walcott Glenn” (PIDs 36-119-23-44-0013, 36-119-23-44-0009, 36-119-23-44-0008, 36-119-23-44-0010, 36- 119-23-44-0014, 36-119-23-44-0031, 36-119-23-44-0024, 36-119-23-44-0033 and 36-119-23-44- 0030) (City file no. 22-015). The plans include 44 single family homes and 85 townhomes. The item was reviewed by the Parks and Trails Commission on April 21st, a public hearing was held at the May 5th Planning Commission and action is expected at the May 26th City Council meeting. Agenda Item: 11a. MEMORANDUM 2 7. Final Plat for “Garages Too” (PID’s 35-119-23-44-0004 and 35-119-23-41-0002) (city file no. 22- 016). The final plat is scheduled for Council action on May 26th. 8. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Ditzer Garage at 9320 Cherry Lane (PID 12-119-23-43-0013) (city file 22-020). The application was reviewed at a public hearing at the May 5th Planning Commission and Council action is expected on May 26th. Additionally, the applicant has requested a setback variance for an existing structure and that item is tentatively scheduled for the June Planning Commission and Council meetings. 9. PUD Amendment for Rush Creek Reserve 2nd Addition (city file no. 22-025). The applicant has submitted the application for a PUD amendment for the side yard setback for twinhomes and townhomes. This item is scheduled for Council action on May 26th. 10. Interim Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 6516 Valley View Road (city file 22-026). This item is scheduled for a public hearing at the June 2nd Planning Commission and City Council action is expected on June 23rd. 11. Site Plan and Interim Use Permit for ProTech Auto at 7591 Commerce St. (PID: 2611923110020) (city file 22-027). This item is being reviewed for completeness and then will be scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council action. However, after submittal of the application, the applicant submitted a sketch plan application and that will be reviewed at the May 26th Council meeting. 12. Final Plat and PUD Final Plan for “Tavera 4th Addition” (city file no. 22-028). The final plat is for 80 single family homes and 42 twinhomes located north of the main entrance at Horseshoe Trail. This item is being reviewed for completeness and then will be scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council action. The following projects were recently acted upon and will be closed out: 1. Wright Hennepin Electric Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and Administrative Permit at 7400 CR 116 (PID 25-119-23-23-0001) (city file 22-004). The applicant has submitted an application for a new electric substation. The application is scheduled for the February 17th Parks and Trails Commission, a public hearing at the March 3rd Planning Commission and the City reviewed on March 24th and sent it back to the Planning Commission to discuss screening. The item was brought back to the April 14th City Council meeting and tabled to April 28th. The Council approved the application on April 28th. 2. Final Plat and PUD Final Plan for “Bellwether 8th Addition” (PID 12-119-23-21-0001) (city file no. 22-007). Pulte has requested approval of 95 lots in the southwest corner of the project. This phase will also include dedication of public park. The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council approved the application on April 28th. 3. Final Plat and PUD Final Plan for “Amberly 2nd Addition” (PID 01-119-23-34-0002) (city file no. 22-008). Pulte has requested approval of 51 lots in the northwest corner to complete the Amberly subdivision. The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council approved the application on April 28th. 4. Site Plan, Interim Use Permit and Variance for “Westside Wholesale Tire” at 19950 75th Ave (PID 26-119-23-14-0018) (city file no. 22-011). Westside Tire has submitted the application for development of the lot to resolve a code compliance issue. The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and the City Council approved the request on May 12th. 5. Final Plat and PUD Final Plan for “Bellwether 9th Addition” (PID 01-119-23-34-0002) (city file no. 22-017). The final plat is for 37 lots. The item was reviewed at the April 7th Planning Commission and City Council approved the application on April 28th. 6. Wawra Ag Preserve at 21401 Larkin Road (city file 22-021). The application was approved by City Council on April 28th. MEMORANDUM 3 7. PUD ordinance amendment (city file 22-022). This is a city-initiated ordinance to amend the final PUD development plan process. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 7th Planning Commission meeting and City Council approved on April 28th. 8. Final Plat for “Town Center Addition” at 8200 CR 116 for St. Therese Communities (city file 22-023). St. Therese Communities has applied for approval of the final plat to create two lots (one for city hall and one for St. Therese) and an outlot for City’s lineal park. This item was approved by the City Council on April 28th. 9. Final Plat and Vacation for “Bechtold Farms at Rush Creek” on the property located at 10165 Bechtold Road (PIDs 05-119-23-44-0001 and 08-119-23-11-0007) (city file 22-024). This item was approved by the City Council on May 12th. City of Corcoran 2022 City Council Schedule Agenda Item: 13. June 9, 2022 •2021 Audit •Memorial Bench Program •RFP Schedule – When and How Often •2023 Budget Goals •Hackamore Road 75% Design •Boardwalk at Bellwether RFP •Rental Ordinance •SE Corcoran Water Supply •Fire Service Work Plan Update •Accepting Donation (ice machine) •Job Description Approval and Authorization to Hire – PW Development Superintendent June 23, 2022 •2023 Budget Priorities •Active Corcoran Planning Applications •Gateway Sign Discussion •NE Water Supply Final Design •Three Rivers Park District – Diamond Lake Regional Trail Presentation •Election Judge Appointments July 14, 2022 •Watershed Commissioner Guenthner – Presentation July 28, 2022 •Financial Management Plan Update •Active Corcoran Planning Applications •Financial Performance Report August 11, 2022 August 25, 2022 •Active Corcoran Planning Applications September 8, 2022 •2023 Preliminary Levy •Levy Insert Document