Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Agenda - 02/04/2025
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 4, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Council Liaison Introduction D. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items E. Approval of Agenda F. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Regular Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2025 • Workshop Meeting Minutes – January 7, 2025 G. Citizen Comment 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” amending the Light Industrial Park, Employment Campus designations and any other related sections of text necessary to define various types of technology industry land uses within the City, identify considerations for their appropriate locations, and maintain consistency with other City land use goals and policies. Applicant: City of Monticello B. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” re- guiding certain parcels from their existing Development Reserve designations to alternative Light Industrial Park. Applicant: Monticello Tech LLC C. Consideration for Amendment to the Block 52 Planned Unit Development District for landscaping, lighting and screening conditions of the PUD approval. Applicant: March Buchholz and City of Monticello 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for a proposed single-family residential including attached and detached unit development in an R-1 (Single-Family) Residential district Applicant: JBP Land, LLC 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report 5. Adjournment MINUTES JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, January 7, 2025 – 5:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Commissioners Absent: Teri Lehner Councilmembers Present: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Lee Martie, Tracy Hinz, Kip Christensen Councilmembers Absent: Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Tyler Bevier, Bob Ferguson 1. Call to Order Mayor Lloyd Hilgart called the joint workshop of the Monticello Planning Commission and City Council to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Joint Workshop Agenda A. Land Use Basics Overview City Planner Steve Grittman provided a presentation covering land use basics to the City Council, Planning Commission and public. Mr. Grittman covered topics such as the history of land use regulations, discretion in land use decisions, relevant definitions, land use process including timelines for agency action, and annexation. No action was taken on the item. 3. Adjournment By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. 1 MINUTES (DRAFT) REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 7, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Rob Stark Commissioners Absent: Teri Lehner Council Liaison: Councilmember Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1.General Business A.Call to Order Chair Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:04 p.m. B.Roll Call Chair Tapper called the roll, noting the absence of Commissioner Lehner. C.Appointment of Officers – Confirmation ANDREW TAPPER NOMINATED MELISSA ROBECK FOR THE VICE CHAIR OFFICER POSTION, SECONDED BY ROB STARK, MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. D.Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None. E.Approval of Agenda MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION SECONDED BY ANDREW TAPPER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. F.Approval of Meeting Minutes •Workshop Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 4, 2024 WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. •Regular Meeting Minutes – December 3, 2024 ROB STARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 3, 2024 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2 • Workshop Meeting Minutes – December 3, 2024 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WORKSHOP MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2024. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. G. Citizen Comment Scott Cutsforth, 8634 Fairfield Lane, resident of the Hunters Crossing neighborhood address the Commission regarding the proposal to connect 87th Street into Hunters Crossing. He indicated safety concerns for the neighborhood connection and noted that the plans referenced are 20 years old. 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed Vehicle Sales and Rental Use in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Variance to minimum lot dimensions. Applicant: Mohammad Awad City Planner Steve Grittman introduced the staff report for the item, speaking about the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the B-3 District. The parcel is located at Highway 25 and Chelsea Road and was previously occupied as the “General Rental” business use. The applicant this evening is seeking to reoccupy the building as a vehicle sales lot. The applicant has recently provided an updated site plan illustrating revised display spaces, employee parking and landscaping. This is provided as a hard copy to the Commission. Steve Grittman stated that automobile sales are an allowed use by conditional use permit in the B-3 District. The property and nearby properties are zoned consistently as Highway Business District. Steve Grittman stated that if the applicant was choosing to expand, there would be conformity adjustments required. However, the applicant is inot proposing the building or site to be expanded. The applicant proposes to have vehicle display around the perimeter. Staff noted that the conditions of approval recommend additional parking space consistent with the code as there is stress on parking availability, particularly on Sandberg Road. The amended plan presented as a hardcopy illustrates the required additional employee parking near the entrance to the building as well as the interior of the building. Steve Grittman stated that the use is consistent with the zoning district and that the applicant would need to modify the site to address Exhibit Z conditions and staff comments. This includes a landscaping plan compliant with code requirements as this is a new use, that the site plan is found to be compliant with the off-street parking requirements, and restriping of the parking lot meeting ordinance dimensional requirements. Steve Grittman stated that other conditions require that employee and customer parking be signed for that exclusive purpose and use, pavement markings are required for one way circulation and vehicle display stalls may meet the 8’ x 18’ requirements. 3 Steve Grittman stated that the site plan has been modified to show site lighting and any new lighting must be in requirement with the city’s code with final details during building review. The freestanding sign on the site is an existing allowable use for the applicant and the wall sign would need to be a sign permit request. Any changes to building materials will need to be shown on a separate plan, as the applicant illustrated no changes at this time. It was also noted that minor auto repair is not permitted on the site, unless with a future conditional use permit . Finally, compliance with city engineering, fire inspection letter and Planning Commissioner comments is required. Steve Grittman concluded that staff recommends approval with the conditions. Rick Kothenbeutwl asked if there was a minimum number of handicap parking spots required. Steve Grittman said this is reviewed by building department staff and believes it is one spot per 15 spaces. Rick Kothenbeutel indicated that he visited the Buffalo location and spoke about it being a nice location and a good fit for the proposed location. Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the item. No public was present to address the Commission regarding the request. Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the item . Charlotte Gabler asked where vehicles would be unloaded. Angela Schumann stated that the zoning code requires that the off-street loading to occur on private property. Andrew Tapper agreed that this lot is a good location and appreciated the quick turnover of the space for a new use. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-02 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED VEHICLE SALES AND RENTAL USE IN A B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) DISTRICT AT 216 SANDBERG ROAD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. B. Consideration of Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for a proposed single-family residential including attached and detached unit development in an R-1 (Single- Family) Residential district Applicant: JBP Land, LLC Steve Grittman provided an overview of the staff report analysis for the requests. The proposal requests preliminary plat, development stage planned unit development, and rezoning to planned unit development for a residential development on a 50-acre parcel. Approximately 40 acres of developable land is 4 available with the remaining dedicated for right of way for Edmonson Avenue and the powerline easement. The powerline easement will be subdivided from the private development area and is exempted from the gross land area. The net density of the project is approximately 4.1 units per acre. The area is guided for Low-Density Residential by the Comprehensive Plan, which is designed for 3 to 6 units per acre. The application replats the parcel as lots and blocks, with two general uses - single family detached and attached townhomes. The circulation of the site illustrates connection points to current and future street locations, with 87th Street connecting to the east to a previous stub. A connection to the south is planned, a connection is provided via the north-south street of Country Avenue, and a connection is also made at 89th Street and at Park Drive. There are two street connections to Edmonson Avenue. Steve Grittman stated that the City’s goal is to maximize connections for traffic dispersal, with surrounding neighborhoods using the new traffic p attern as well. The applicants have conducted a traffic study of volume with a peak of 5 – 7 additional trips per hour, during morning and evening rush hours. A vehicle trip every 6-10 minutes is estimated. Overall, it is a low traffic pattern with the low density residential project. Steve Grittman states that townhomes generate less traffic on a per unit basis than a single family home. Those proposed are located closest to Edmonson Avenue and that connection point. Steve Grittman stated that staff does not believe there will be concerns with the traffic and the connections previously proposed are still valid. Steve Grittman discussed the proposed plat and PUD, stating that there are two different types of detached units. There is a 52’ minimum width model and a 62’ minimum width model with a series of housing types for each model. The plat illustrates minimum 6’ side yards, with 40’ and 50’ buildable pads, with many lots wider along the gasline and powerline easements. The townhouse standard configuration is attached side-by-side units of eight-plexes as clusters, with four-unit clusters on the perimeter, served by a private internal street system owned by the owners-association. The driveways appear adequate for vehicle usage, and no parking would be allowed on the street . Aa number of parking bays are provided around the site with the staff report noting that there could be fewer parking bays as there are a generous amount shown that could be returned for more green space. Steve Grittman walked through the design of the buildings which flex various standards of the zoning requirements. The flex of standards should meet City land- use goals, and include enhancements and amenities. The flexibility should work toward affordability and be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood uses. Steve Grittman walked through the conditions, which he stated are meant to streamline the building permit request when the applicant brings forth building 5 plans, providing a base set of expectations should the house plans change in the future but continuing to comply with the Planned Unit Development ordinance. Steve Grittman began with the condition for verification that the building and design proposals for the single family detached units and lots will meet a 25 foot front setback, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. The application illustrates a 25 foot usable rear yard, exceeding standards. Minimum building sizes of 1,000 finished square feet, and a minimum of 1,700 square feet of finishable area is a condition of approval, keeping homes affordable yet allowing flexibility. The current code requires 2,000 finishable space. Garage square footage of at least 480 square feet is a standard code requirement. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation has been applied to single family housing in the past years. To avoid plainness, there is a condition that the home models shall contain brick or stone on front façade equal to at least 15% of all front-facing surfaces; or a minimum of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. Additional conditions recommend livable portions of the home exposed to the front street of no less than 40% of the width of the structure. Steve Grittman gave an example with a 52’ lot, with a 40’ building pad, 40% of the 40’ needs to be livable space facing the street. The condition for front façade no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features has been applied to prevent neighborhoods from be dominated by garage doors and limited front entry space. Staff acknowledge that some models may not fit the 6’ rule, the alternative suggests a front porch or front patio that bring that outdoor living space towards the street. Other conditions require additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. This is to prevent the loss of proposed trees as the lots become narrower in tandem with front yard of larger driveways, and utilities. Staff would like to see the current tree map supplemented of 1 -2 trees per frontage, with clustering of additional trees to enhance the green impact of the neighborhood . A condition to establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two-car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line or curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD, is intended to eliminate the amount of pavement in the front yards of narrow lots and preserves curbline along the street. It is also requested that the applicant provide an anti-monotony plan to further support the PUD flexibility requested and the applicants have indicated that they have a policy of anti-monotony that would be incorporated into the approval. Steve Grittman then spoke to the townhomes and single family attached conditions. A reduction in visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one- fourth and replace with additional green space opportunities for tree planting is 6 recommended, as staff believes there is more than enough visitor parking at the one space per three units. The applicant shall update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs as opposed to perennials in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. A modification of the garage designs to increase interior widths by at least one foot, or more, to better accommodate parking and access to vehicles is also requested. Staff believes that the garage widths of under 18’ provide limited access to vehicles or trash and recycling bins, this is a PUD flex requested by the applicant. It is requested that the applicant provide detail on building materials for the units, with LP Smartside or fiber-cement siding required; in the alternative brick/Stone on front façade equal to at least 15% of all front-facing surfaces; or a minimum of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. The city has taken an active approach to avoid plain architectural styles and low quality materials, and this condition is to provide flexibility yet within the envelope of past requirements. Other conditions require updated landscape plans showing tree planting locations for the trees in the townhouse portion of the project and verification of tree planting for all areas per code requirements, as well as additional clusters of shrub plantings and seating areas in the outlots comprising the development’s stormwater ponding areas to enhance the pathways. Other conditions for the plat and PUD require written confirmation of allowable use for a non-motorized bicycle park by the powerline easement holder and compliance with the terms of the City’s engineering staff, Chief Building Official’s letter and comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. Steve Girttman stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions of Exhibit Z. Rick Kothebeutel asked if the overnight parking rules and the proposed reduction of visitor parking bays would apply to the private streets. Steve Grittman stated that the homeowners association would be responsible for management and maintenance, and that private streets are not designed to accommodate on -street parking. Rick Kothenbeutel asked about traffic management and safety on Edmonson, with the three lane proposed from Chelsea to School boulevard. Steve Grittman stated that the city’s intention is to create a three-lane street with roundabout intersections at Chelsea and School Boulevards and would require additional right of way and participate in the construction of any improvements. Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the item. Scott Cutsforth, 8634 Fairhill Lane, addressed the Commission, expressing safety concerns regarding the proposed 87th Street connection into Hunters Crossing, which is currently a cul-de-sac. The plans referenced for the connections are 20 7 years old. Scott Cutsforth introduced a petition signed by the neighborhood, noting the percentage of residents signing of the homes located near the proposed connection points. Scott Cutsforth stated that the residents have lived in the neighborhood for 9-15 years, with neighbors knowing each other and it is a safe neighborhood. He commented that traffic and speeds have increased. The proposed bike park would be an additional generator of traffic. Scott Cutsforth noted the presence of bus stops and that increased speed and traffic volumes are not preferred. A pathway was suggested by Cutsforth Scott Cutsforth also addressed concerns regarding utility easement widths, and reduction of tree cover. Angela Schumann requested a copy of the petition to forward to the City Clerk, who would reach out with any additional questions. Michael Lenzen, 8785 Fairhill Lane, spoke to the safety aspect, and the need for another fire station and additional tornado sirens. Michael Lenzen also spoke to the city’s development pattern and land-use regarding respect for nature and existing residents. Carol Schlenz, 8673 Eisle Avenue, spoke to the proposal for smaller lots, and the density of the project, with concern regarding the proposed 6 foot distance between the two houses and using density to justify affordable housing. Carol Schlenz explained that their home backs up to nature and expressed concern regarding the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Andrew Tapper clarified to the public commenter that it is 6 feet on each side of the property line and would be 12 feet between each home. Lucinda Spanier, Entitlements Manager for JP Brooks and JBP Land Development, addressed the Commission. The previous plan did not show the attached townhomes. However, the per lot cost on the previous example was not a viable option, and they have continued to work on alternatives for the community and the market with staff input. Lucinda Spanier spoke to the Exhibit Z conditions, beginning with the request of a 25’ setback, 6’ side yard setbacks and 25’ rear yard setback. The applicant stated that they do not need to go down to 20’ rear yard setback as their development is above this standard. The minimum setbacks are 12’ between homes, and curvature of the roadway in some cases increases setbacks to more than the 12’. Lucinda Spanier spoke to the minimum building size in regard to the city code of 1,050’. No flexibility is needed with the standard, yet in regard to the minimum finishable standard of 2,000 square feet, the applicant is requesting flexibility for the senior buyer market villas which are intended to be 1,355 square feet of finishable space. There is requested flexibility for the garage square footage of 480 square feet, for reduction to 476 square feet for a two car garage for one model of the twenty-six models. 8 Lucinda Spanier stated that the façade features requirements would result in increased cost and would eliminate the most affordable version of the home models and would reduce the variety of facades in the neighborhood. Lastly, Lucinda Spanier spoke to how façade variety creates an interesting neighborhood, and increased cost would create a less inclusive neighborhood as the houses become unattainable for a segment of buyers. Lucinda Spanier spoke to the architectural distinctions for each of the model types, including LP Smartside LP pillars for front porches, gables, coach lamps at garage doors,LP Smartside window wrapping, upgraded garage doors that offer windows, stone address plaques, many of which are standard for the proposed units. Lucinda Spanier spoke to the willingness of the applicant to work with staff to develop a formula for the value of the exterior enhancements. There are certain facades models which meet or exceed the requirements, yet the affordable units would be eliminated through these proposed requirements. Lucinda Spanier gave an overview JP Brooks’ mission of constructing quality homes at an affordable price, and spoke to a new model would not comply with the proposed conditions for the livable portion of the home exposed to the front street be no less than 40% of the width of the structure. Lucinda Spanier also spoke to the condition regarding front entry doors no greater than 6 feet further back than the garage doors, stating that some house plans meet or exceed this standard, and spoke to feasibility to meet this condition through expanded stoops, garage sidewalls and a variety of opportunities. Lucinda Spanier spoke to the feasibility to meet the tree coverage requirements per the code of two trees in the front of the home and four trees in the boulevard for corner lots and three trees on corner lots of the townhomes, yet is requesting staff provide more direction on specifics for implementation. Lucinda Spanier spoke to the anti-monotony plan meeting the conditions of staff’s report. Andrew Tapper asked if the applicant could simply not offer the model units that do not meet the standards proposed by staff and asked the applicant for more information regarding the number of home model variations and options that would be reduced per staff’s recommendations. Lucinda Spanier indicated that number would be difficult to quantify given the number of variables and would require further research. Commissioner Gabler asked about the 25 models, and if none of them meet the staff requirements and if the ones that do not meet the standard could be cut from the proposal. Lucinda Spanier stated that the vast majority of homes do meet the conditions yet four models do not meet the minimum floor area requirements. Regarding the models that would need to be cut, that would eliminate the entire senior housing plan for the neighborhood known as the villas as slab on grade. 9 Councilmember Charlotte Gabler asked which ones are a villa. Lucinda Spanier illustrated the Oxford II, Augusta, Madison and Lakeford are all planned at 40’ wide homes on 52’ wide lots. Andrew Tapper asked if the Augusta was the model that does not meet the 1,700’ square foot standard. Lucinda Spanier stated that if a buyer does not chose to add the sunporch option to the Augusta the finishable square foot is 1,355’. Angela Schumann spoke to staff’s goal to establish a minimum or base standards for the applicant to work from versus approving individual floor plans. Angela Schumann recommended discussing what that minimum base standard would be, and spoke to the recent Haven Ridge West where there is flexibility on the minimum finishable standard to 1,500 square feet. Angela Schumann spoke to the façade treatments to create a quality neighborhood. Charlotte Gabler spoke to affordability of the homes and asked for how the façade treatments relate to the proposed unaffordability of the homes . Lucinda Spanier soke to the cost of land as the beginning variable and that each upgrade does have a dollar amount assigned to it; they are working to find a balance of distinct architecture and affordability in 2025. Charlotte Gabler asked if the applicant had purchased the land. Lucinda Spanier stated the applicant does not own the land. Charlotte Gabler stated she is in favor of more housing and appealing to the senior buyer. Andrew Tapper stated affordable often means how the developer can construct a home while still turning a profit and spoke to how the Planning Commission needs to decide what neighborhood they would like to see. It may be necessary to send the plans back to staff and the developer to further negotiate and remain within statute timelines for staff review. Angela Schumann stated that if the Planning Commission would like to table and send back to staff, it would be important for the Planning Commission to hear the applicant views on the townhomes and receive Planning Commission’s input. City Planner Steve Grittman summarized that staff and the applicant may be closer in alignment than it appears. Steve Grittman spoke to the affordability with Wright County’s area median income (AMI) for 2024 is $97,000 for a couple, could afford a home in the upper $300,000s+, and a $400,000 house may be considered affordable. Andrew Tapper asked for feedback on the attached units from the applicant. Lucinda Spanier demonstrated via images the dimensional allowances of the townshomes. 10 There was a brief discussion on HOA restrictions for storage. Lucinda Spanier stated she would need to confer with the HOA documents for final verification on recreational and vehicle storage options. Andrew Tapper asked if there were any additional public comment s and reminded commenters to state their name for the record. Scott Cutsforth again addressed the Commission, noting the increase in unit count from the prior concept and inquiring about affordability range. Michael Lenzen, 8785 Fairhill Lane, inquired why the City would lower the standards to provide more profitability for the developers, and the increase of homes in the newest proposal, as well as concerns regarding the increased traffic from the neighborhood. Michael Lenzen concluded with support for the larger garages. Andrew Tapper noted the development as a Planned Unit Development and it is a consideration for the City receive more amenities in exchange for flexibility. The City gains by having development, and cautioned against asking for homes too large that are not sellable, and the need for a variety types of homes. Nick Sumberg, 710 East Broadway, spoke to the lawncare and landscaping needed and the need for a variety of homes in the community. He addressed the usefulness of the park proposed as related to the petition and traffic concerns. Scott Dahlke, 8610 Edmonson Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that the proposal is a good use of the land and a reasonable layout. Scott Dahlke spoke to the respectableness of the developer through a number of projects he has seen around the greater community and recommended approval of the item. Andrew Tapper asked if there were any other public comment s. No other public addressed the Commission on the requests. Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the item Charlotte Gabler gave an overview of the discussion, that homes are a good use for the space, yet concerns regarding density and the 87th roadway connection. Andrew Tapper said that residential development is what the property is designed and guided for, and was unsure of the impacts of traffic and accessibility if there was no connection at 87th; traffic is balanced by having multiple connections. Rob Stark asked staff if there are other options to the circulation plan. Angela Schumann stated that more paths of circulation provide greater distribution of traffic flow and that connection to Edmonson Avenue is necessary as it is a collector road. Steve Grittman stated that it is a common planning practice to have multiple connections and that the streets were not intended to be a dead-ends. There may be impacts if the connections are not made that require further research. 11 Andrew Tapper stated that 87th and Eisle intersection are unique with the topography and creates higher speeds than what would be expected. Angela Schumann stated that other neighborhoods in the community have multiple connections to a collector road, which is necessary for emergency vehicle access. Rick Kothenbeutel spoke to verification regarding the tornado siren and circulation, as well as . neighborhood involvement in the park design. Scott Cutsforth, 8634 Fairhill Lane, reiterated that 61% of the petition respondents did not want a through street the safety of having less vehicles in the neighborhood. Andrew Tapper spoke to the common nature that anytime new land is developed there is going to be concern; the resource of land needs to be developed over time. Staff and Planning Commission do their best to accommodate concerns. Melissa Robeck summarized Exhibit Z concerns about the flexibility to reduce the standard for finishable space and garages. Andrew Tapper concurred and spoke to the estimated 1/3 of models that are not in compliance with staff’s recommendations. Angela Schumann noted the three conditions that were missing from the plat resolutions. These include the HOA covenants are subject to the comment and review of the City Attorney, execution and recording of the development contract, and comment and review from the Wright County Highway Engineer and County Surveyor. Andrew Tapper stated that they would prefer to be presented with a cleaner set of standards. Rob Stark noted the amount of exceptions being made. Melissa Robeck stated that the Commission would need to decide on final conditions. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-03, RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-04 AND RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-05. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. This item will be brought back to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 4, 2025. Angela Schumann stated that the 60-day deadline is February 7, 2025 and an extension letter will be sent to the applicant. C. Consideration of Adoption of the 2025 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann stated that each year, an official zoning map is considered for adoption. The zoning map includes appendices for natural resources, Central Community District (CCD) sub-districts and the Pointes at Cedar (PCD) sub-districts. 12 The zoning map reflects the map changes that have occurred over the prior year. These include the Big River 445 PUD, change to the floodplain map boundaries, and Cedar Street Storage PUD. There are no changes to the CCD or PCD. The shoreland boundary has been updated to include a lake that was not on the map in concurrence with the Department of Natural Resources. The lake is currently outside the city boundary. Wright County has already shown this on their maps previously and this is simply a correction. Andrew Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the item. No public was present to address the Commission on the item. Andrew Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the item ROB STARK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2025-01 RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 841 FOR ADOPTION OF THE 2025 CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND APPENDICES, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION . ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration to adopt the 2025 Planning Commission Workplan Update Angela Schumann gave an overview of the workplan for the upcoming year. The workplan makes connections between Planning Commissions and additional boards. Angela Schumann reminded Commissioners that this is the last year of the 2021- 2025 workplan and that they would be reviewing the document for possible extension at the end of the year. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT THE 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKPLACE. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report Angela Schumann addressed recent information from the Office of Cannabis Management. Staff will continue to monitor as related to City ordinances and practice. Angela Schumann welcomed Bob Ferguson as the Chief Building Official. Melissa Robeck the hotel project proposals. Angela Schumann stated two projects are proposed, the Fairfield Hotel and restaurant is in building permit review, and the Broadway Plaza continues to work through items for finalization. 13 Angela Schuman gave a compliment to the Communications Coordinator and the Community and Economic Development Coordinator for the projects page on the City’s website being streamlined as well as updates to the public hearing page. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification of the Office of Cannabis Management rollout. Angela Schumann spoke that the recent litigation will place applicants in the same lottery pool and reminded Commissioners about the delegation of the registration to Wright County. The City retains zoning authority. 5. Adjournment MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 7, 2025 REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMISSION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 1 2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” amending the Light Industrial Park, Employment Campus designations and any other related sections of text necessary to define various types of technology industry land uses within the City, identify considerations for their appropriate locations, and maintain consistency with other City land use goals and policies. Applicant: City of Monticello Prepared by: Grittman Consulting, Stephen Grittman, City Planner Meeting Date: 02/04/2025 Council Date (pending Commission action): 02/24/2025 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, City Administrator, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Economic Development Manager ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of Amendment to Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan Text 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-06 recommending approval of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” amending the Light Industrial Park, Employment Campus designations and related sections of text necessary to define various types of technology industry land uses within the City, identify considerations for their appropriate locations, and maintain consistency with other City land use goals and policies, based on findings in Resolution No. PC-2025-06. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2025-06 recommending approval of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” amending the Light Industrial Park, Employment Campus designations and related sections of text necessary to define various types of technology industry land uses within the City, identify considerations for their appropriate locations, and maintain consistency with other City land use goals and policies, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2025-06. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: City of Monticello PIDs #: City of Monticello Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 2 Planning Case Number: 2025.04 Request(s): Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan) Deadline for Decision: March 15, 2025 (60-day deadline) May 14, 2025 (120-day deadline) Land Use Designation: Light Industrial Park, Employment Campus Zoning Designation: N/A Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: N/A Current Site Uses: N/A Surrounding Land Uses: N/A Project Description: Consideration of amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan related to the addition and regulation of data centers as an allowable land use within the City. ANALYSIS: Data Center Land Uses Over the past several months, Monticello has received several inquiries for potential data center development. While reviewing this development sector and gathering information on the nature and impacts of this land use, it has become apparent that the City’s current land use documents do not adequately address the use or expectations for of this type of development. Data Centers are commonly described as concentrations of computer servers that store data and software applications. A data center facility consists generally of multiple computer servers, cooling systems, infrastructure such as electricity systems and structures, back-up power generation, and related functions and equipment. There are several types, including proprietary “enterprise” centers that are specific to a single business enterprise, “co-located” centers that serve a variety of businesses that rent or sell data space, and “cloud” or “hyperscale” centers that manage data for large tech users such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and similar corporations. Additional information and citations on the characteristics of data centers are included within this report as supporting data. The consideration for allowance of data centers within Monticello is considered to have two distinct components – one public, and one private. The primary role addressed by this report is Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 3 the public role. The City has the authority to manage land use through its Comprehensive Plan and its Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the administration thereof. The purpose of this report is to give the City the opportunity to set its land use goals and priorities for data center development independently of any private application to amend its land use documents. While private development applications related to data centers may be proposed concurrent with or after this City process, those applications are distinguished as being request(s) for land use guidance of specific parcels of land. The City’s first consideration is the introduction of data centers as a specific land use within the community. Any new use to be added to the inventory of a city’s land use regulations must be able to advance the City’s land use goals and objectives. Generally, a city has no obligation to accommodate any particular land use. There are some limited exceptions related to Constitutional principles of free speech, press, assembly, religion, and others. Data centers do not fall into any of these protected classes. Therefore, the threshold step for the City and the subject of this report and hearing, is whether to amend the text of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan) to accommodate data centers as an allowable use within its land use designations. A map amendment is not proposed as part of this hearing and report. Clear accommodation for the use in the 2040 Plan would be necessary to any further consideration of data centers within Monticello. Comprehensive Plan Purpose The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan is the City’s adopted comprehensive plan. The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan defines the community’s goals for growth and land use development for the next 20 years. It is the foundational document on which decisions regarding land use and development are made for the community. The following is an excerpt from the Monticello 2040 Plan: “A Comprehensive Plan is about planning for Monticello’s future. It reflects the community’s shared concerns and aspirations, anticipates future growth and development and supports a thriving, healthy city. It provides Monticello a means for balancing social, economic and environmental benefits with the costs associated with development. Moving forward, Monticello will seek to refine and firmly establish its identity while capitalizing on its strategic location in the region along Interstate 94 and the Mississippi River, and between the greater Minneapolis and St. Cloud metropolitan areas. As the City’s blueprint for growth and guide to decision making, the comprehensive plan is the foundation upon which development and land use decisions are based. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 4 Development related ordinances and regulations, such as the Zoning Ordinance and Capital Improvement Program, must be consistent with and implement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the official adopted policy regarding the long-term physical development and conservation of the natural environment in the City of Monticello.” It is important to note that cities have the ability and authority to comprehensively plan and guide land use beyond municipal borders. The extension of land use guidance into growth areas allows cities to think proactively about orderly and efficient patterns of development, as well as the extension of utilities, funding and other community resources necessary to support that growth. The Monticello 2040 Plan guides growth to the extent of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). The MOAA is the area eligible for annexation under the City’s current agreement with Monticello Township. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan) Goals & Objectives The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan details the community’s goals for growth and development, including land use, economic development, mobility, open space and community facilities. When considering the introduction of a new land use, the use should be evaluated against the 2040 Plan goals. Among the Plan goals related to data center consideration are the following: • Monticello as a strong and growing regional employment center including a variety of economic sectors established as the preferred location for manufacturing, technology, research, and development, and home to a diverse mix of businesses and industries. • A successful business attraction and retention program that attracts new businesses and retains existing businesses. • A stable and expanding tax base that diversifies the city’s economy and creates sustainable employment to offset the eventual closure of the Xcel Energy Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. These goals reflect support for development which spurs employment and a stable and expanding economy based on a diverse mix of businesses. In analysis of these goals relative to data centers, the tax base potential and industry diversification are significant considerations. The building-to-land ratio of data center uses, based on recent concept layouts provided to staff and supported by other sources, show approximately 25,000 square feet of building footprint per acre, a nearly 60% land utilization. This is a very high ratio compared to other industrial uses and even commercial uses. By way of comparison, the developed portion of the City’s Otter Creek industrial campus area, with a mix of manufacturing, warehousing, and office Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 5 uses (such as Karlsburger Foods, Suburban Manufacturing, Dahlheimer Distribution), has a building-to-land ratio of approximately 20%. Even with intense development, industrial areas are unlikely to exceed 30% ratios. This intensity of development is balanced against the City’s goals for land availability. Data centers have the potential to consume hundreds of acres of land, with needs for municipal infrastructure, including water and sewer services. However, the extension of municipal utilities necessary for the facilities can also further additional industrial (and other land use) availability. As part of planning in the interest of the 2040 tax base and employment goals, it will be important to monitor and reserve industrial land supply within the city and the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). When considering employment goals, industry estimates place permanent employment for data centers at about 10% per acre of a comparably sized manufacturing facility. However, these estimates do not include the large number of initial employment jobs created during construction of the facility and the ongoing employment expected for facility upgrades, which are common to these types of computing facilities. The City can also achieve its employment goals through the further designation of industrial land – both in terms of providing adequate supply and appropriate use classification. Comprehensive Land Use Designation Review In addition to ensuring consistency with the City’s overall growth goals, part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment consideration is how the data center use fits within the land use designations for the community. The 2040 Plan separates land uses within broad categories reflective of the activity and impacts that may occur. These include Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Open Space designations. In considering the text amendment to allow data centers, the City will also need to evaluate which land use designation is most appropriate to the use and its characteristics. Considering the general function and operation of data center facilities as large computing warehouses, and that there is no direct customer interaction, data centers would most appropriately be considered an industrial use within Monticello’s existing land use framework. The classification as industrial is consistent with other non-commercial warehousing and processing-type uses. The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan describes three general categories of industrial land use. • Employment Campus (EC): Described as applying “to areas of Monticello where a high concentration of jobs is desired.” While the Employment Campus designation includes reference to “Computer Technology” land uses, this reference is intended and commonly read as technology jobs considering the employment goals of this land use category. Strengthening the Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 6 employment focus of the Employment Campus designation within the 2040 Plan would lend additional clarity and support to this 2040 Plan goal. The Employment Campus designation generally points to zoning districts including Industrial-Business Campus (IBC). • Light Industrial Park (LIP): Described as accommodating a broad range of industrial businesses focused on activities that are primarily indoor, and with very limited impacts. These impacts may include traffic generated by employees and trucking activity in support of business shipping operations. LIP’s corresponding zoning districts include both IBC (Industrial Business Campus,) and I-1 (Light Industrial) zoning districts. The Light Industrial Park land use category bridges the Employment Campus and General Industrial descriptions. • General Industrial (GI): General Industrial land use designation includes uses which are reliant on industrial service and outdoor storage and/or conduct “heavy” industrial operations. The plan suggests that the potential for significant off-site impacts on residential or commercial development may mark a particular industrial enterprise for this category. They may also generate other impacts which require mitigation for impact off-site, such as traffic impacts. The plan suggests that General Industrial uses will most commonly be regulated through the application of the I-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning district. The general categories work together to support multi-faceted industrial development that can achieve overall land use goals in distinct yet complementary ways. To maintain the strength of these designations, staff analyzed the characteristics of data center development and how to best classify it within the Monticello 2040 Plan. Based on this analysis, the least consistent of the three would be the Employment Campus designation. This land use category is intended to ensure industrial development facilitates living-wage employment that is vital to achieving additional Comprehensive Plan goals for long- term city strength and stability. This designation emphasizes the creation of an employment- dense area that data centers cannot provide. The jobs created during construction and subsequent facility upgrades are temporary, and the permanent employment expected to be created is lower than the City’s objectives for Employment Campus. While data centers are not particularly well-suited for this category, the designation currently includes “computer technology” uses. The reference exists in a series of other examples dominated by office and research-oriented businesses. When read in this context, the intent is use or development of computer technology rather than storage as exemplified by a data center. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 7 Attention to this distinction and clarification of the language would further define the City’s intent for technology land uses within the Employment Campus designation. Strengthening the employment focus of the Employment Campus designation within the 2040 Plan would also lend additional clarity to this important 2040 Plan goal. The General Industrial category accommodates some creation of noise and outdoor storage, which can be an aspect of data center development. However, it also anticipates manufacturing and trucking activities which are not typical of a data center use. While data centers could be considered for the General Industrial category, the designation in application would open these development areas to several industrial use impacts that are unlikely to be compatible with other, less intense or “lighter” urban uses. In recent years, the City has taken care to locate heavy industrial land use designations in locations that are remote from other, more sensitive land uses, including residential and commercial areas. Where such heavy industrial uses have abutted other land use categories, such as residential or commercial in the past, incompatibility commonly creates issues years later. As such, accommodating data center development – which can consume hundreds of acres of land – under a heavy industrial categorization would likely be problematic for other land use planning around the designated area. In addition, while data centers may locate generator, cooling or water supply systems outside their primary building, these accessory uses are not substantively similar to heavy industrial outdoor storage. Rather, they are more closely aligned with the City’s view of the systems necessary and appurtenant to the principal use. Finally, data centers, given their low employment and lack of customer interaction, also do not create traffic or vehicle impacts common to heavy industrial uses. Given the relative inconsistency with either the Employment Campus or General Industrial land use designations, the next consideration would be an evaluation of data centers as a type of Light Industrial Park use. Light industrial uses are typically confined to businesses that contain their manufacturing or other operations indoors, and which produce limited outdoor impacts (such as odors, noise, lights, or similar impacts). Light industrial land uses may include truck operations or high employment, but these are not the focus or highest impact considerations for these uses. Warehousing (distinct from truck distribution centers) would be considered a common light industrial use, along with processing and production manufacturers without the noted outdoor impacts or storage. From this perspective, Light Industrial Park would appear to be the closest land use match to data center uses. There are potential issues with a Light Industrial Park designation for data center uses. As noted above, data centers have the potential to create intermittent noise from sources which need to be understood and managed. These sources may include back-up power generation and placement of certain operational elements such as cooling or power generation systems in outdoor locations. It would be critical to control for these impacts within the City’s planning Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 8 documents and regulatory framework to establish compatibility with surrounding or nearby future land uses. Land Use Goals & Land Use Designation Summary Based on available information, data center land uses would have a significant positive impact in achievement of City goals for industrial development relating to tax base generation and tax base diversification. While data centers do not create extensive employment opportunities, they provide employment both within the facility and in secondary employment opportunities, and the potential for additional technology sector development. Provided the City has and retains other avenues and land areas to meet its other industrial goals and objectives, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to allow data centers can be supported. Inherent in this support is the regulatory approach discussed later in this report. Comprehensive planning is supported by zoning and other ordinances which serve to further implement the Plan’s objectives. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Components Should the City proceed with an amendment to establish data centers as an allowable land use, staff suggests the text of the Monticello 2040 Plan be amended as follows: 1. Both the Employment Campus land use designation and the Light Industrial Park land use designation are amended to clarify the existing “computer technology” language. a. Employment Campus language incorporates technology development and research and specifically excludes passive uses of technology as principal land use activities, such as data center storage or base computer/computing usage. The Employment Campus land use designation is amended to emphasize development which provides substantial employment density at living wages. b. Light Industrial Park language will continue to include technology development and research but will include passive uses of technology as principal land use activities, such as data center storage or data computing usage. 2. To address the specialized impacts that data center land uses may present, it is also recommended that additional language is written into the Light Industrial Park designation. The amendment states that Data Centers (defined as passive uses of technology as principal land uses for computer storage and usage/processing) are acceptable land uses when the following conditions are found to exist: a. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size and scope. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 9 b. Data center use locations will not create conflict with other land uses, especially residential land uses, through off site impacts including unusual amounts of noise, lights, odors, or other similar aspects. Data center users will demonstrate site conditions that meet this condition and are consistent with other light industrial development. c. Where data center development creates shortages in land supply, utility services, electric generation service to the broader area, or any other impacts on the City of Monticello or its neighboring communities, and which are not specifically mitigated by the data center developer and its associated partners, the City is under no obligation to accommodate the use within any land use district or location, or through any land use process. d. Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated by the data center project and its developers, and such mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent owners, users, and other related entities. e. The data center will not inhibit future growth; it will accommodate and facilitate the extension of efficient and orderly municipal infrastructure to the edge of the development property consistent with the City’s plans for growth. f. Full and clear assurances from both the data center use and the electric utility provider that data center development will not create threats of power loss to the community, nor limit the city’s other growth and development interests in the future. Regulatory Approach While the 2040 Plan Light Industrial Park land use designation has aspects that may support the inclusion of data centers, there are potential compatibility and capacity issues. Data center development raises the possibility of development on hundreds of acres of land, with building coverage in the millions of square feet. Given this potential, they have generated discussion about compatibility with surrounding uses, infrastructure capacity, and industrial land area availability. The potential scope of data center development speaks to the need to not only identify a specific land use designation and clarifying text, but to also consider a land use management approach that directly addresses the unique characteristics of data centers. The following zoning framework is suggested should the City direct the accommodation of data center land uses. This framework is intended to support the policymakers as they consider the initial Comprehensive Plan amendment. It outlines the process by which a data center use could be reviewed and authorized. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 10 Zoning Ordinance Amendment While the Comprehensive Plan guides overall land use, it is the Zoning Ordinance which specifies the zoning districts for individual uses and governs the specific standards of development. As such, zoning amendments would be a likely next step following accommodation of the use within the 2040 Plan. The 2040 Plan generally directs land guided as “Light Industrial Park” to be zoned either Light Industrial (I-1) District or Industrial Business Campus (IBC) District. Given the earlier review of data center employment generation, the most likely (and recommended) zoning designation for data centers uses is I-1. However, there may be locations that would not be appropriate or compatible with a data center land use, despite appropriate I-1 zoning. To proactively manage compatibility, the City could use overlay zoning to allow a more finely-tuned evaluation of the impacts and compatibility of data center land uses. Overlay districts are a layer of zoning which is “overlaid” on the base zoning. For example, a residential land use may be zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, but may also be included within a the Shoreland Overlay District, which sets additional requirements specific to local and state statutory requirements for proximity to public waters. In this case, a Data Center Overlay District would be established in the zoning ordinance. A data center developer/applicant would request rezoning to apply the Data Center Overlay District over a specific area of an I-1 (Light Industrial) District. An overlay district grants the City greater leverage in determining whether the developers’ burden has been met when considering a data center development proposal. The overlay district approach also removes the presumption of approval that a Conditional Use Permit alone would entail. Where both a base zoning district and overlay district are in place, the more restrictive standard of either ordinance will prevail. Although a specific location may be guided Light Industrial Park and zoned I-1, the use of an overlay district zoning tool would allow the City to consider whether a specific location is appropriate for data center development – and what elements contribute to appropriate location. A data center overlay rezoning action would be considered for property that meets all of the requirements in the overlay district, such as the items outlined below. • Proximity to Residential Land Uses: Data Centers have the potential to create noise, usually through outdoor-located back-up power generation or cooling systems. Any other types of noise would also need to be accounted for prior to Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 11 any consideration. In contrast, if such issues are controlled or mitigated, data centers generate very low volumes of traffic, and virtually no regular truck traffic, so they can be low-impact neighbors. In some examples, back-up power generation may be limited to short regular testing – similar to other users with back-up power. In this description, only in a major power-supply emergency would the generators be used for longer periods of time. The overlay district would require the study of any noise impacts and present a thorough and adequate mitigation plan, as determined by the City. • Utility Demands: Depending on the type of data center, these facilities can be prodigious users of municipal water and can contribute significant volumes of wastewater for treatment. In some areas, new utility services or design system upgrades may need to be made to accommodate (any) land use and development, and in others, adequate supply may be available. The overlay ordinance could be written such that the study of these systems would be conducted as a condition of application. The study would be required to demonstrate to the City’s satisfaction adequate capacity and design to serve these users, without creating a shortage of capacity or block for other development. • Transportation: Transportation impacts and demands will require study. Networks, including multi-modal options, may require extension, capacity and/or design improvements. • Industrial Land Supply: As part of its overlay zoning consideration, the City will evaluate and determine whether adequate supplies of land to accommodate other light-industrial development are available within its boundary and Orderly Annexation Area if data center development consumes large areas currently guided. • Economic/Fiscal Issues: Like most land development, the data center development process is likely to entail several associated, but separate, entities – land developer, construction manager, owner, user(s). Development contracts to secure financial obligations and to bind future parties for infrastructure development would be an overlay zoning consideration. Moreover, a thorough examination of city expenses will be necessary to ensure that any financial or legal securities are addressed in full. The timing of these agreements will be an important consideration in final overlay rezoning. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 12 • Electric Power Usage: Data center development is under scrutiny due to its substantial demand for electric power, and its potential for creating stress on the local or regional electric power infrastructure and supply. Monticello’s location as a nuclear power plant host, and the extensive power line infrastructure, are a significant reason for recent data center interest. Data center coordination with energy service providers and information on their permitting process will be a point of consideration. The application information for overlay district must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City whether the electric power supply can remain consistent and robust for others in and around the community, without threat of power loss due to the development of data centers in the community. • Development Site Design Standards: As a part of the consideration of the Zoning Overlay district, it is envisioned that the City's process will incorporate full site plan review of the details of any individual project proposal - either as a part of the Zoning Overlay District itself or as a companion zoning review. This would include items such as building design, setback, buffering, etc. The specifics of that process would be more completely defined as the City considers upcoming amendments to the I-1 District and Zoning Ordinance. In summary, if the City proceeds with the Comprehensive Plan text amendments establishing an allowance for data centers within the Light Industrial Park designation, staff recommend future Zoning Ordinance amendments as a means to manage data centers as a specific use within light industrial guided and zoned areas. Individual data center development proposals may also require subdivision consistent with City ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believe that the inclusion of Data Centers as an allowable land use may have a positive impact on the City’s land use goals overall, given their property tax generation capacity, diversification of tax base, and economic development catalyst potential. Staff believe that the nature of the use is best accommodated within the Light Industrial Park land use designation. Staff further acknowledge that data centers may have potential impacts that require mitigation and therefore recommend as a next step a zoning ordinance amendment to address the more detailed land use considerations. Should the City proceed with approval of the amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan the following are supporting statements, which are reflected in the Findings of Fact in the accompanying Resolution: Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 13 1. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation Chapter states the following goal: “Monticello as a strong and growing regional employment center including a variety of economic sectors established as the preferred location for manufacturing, technology, research, and development, and home to a diverse mix of businesses and industries.” 2. The Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Chapter states the following goal: “A successful business attraction and retention program that attracts new businesses and retains existing businesses.” 3. The Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Chapter states the following goal: “A stable and expanding tax base that diversifies the city’s economy and creates a sustainable employment to offset the eventual closure of the Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.” 4. The Comprehensive Plan Implementation Chapter - Employment and Industrial Designations section notes that the City expressly provides land for such uses “. . . to promote a strong industrial business sector represented by increased jobs and tax revenue generated for Monticello.” 5. The Growth Strategy section of the Land Use Chapter states that future growth areas will retain existing land uses “. . . until request for annexation and development under the Orderly Annexation Agreement occur, and transportation and utility improvements are installed. This includes utility studies to support cost effective and efficient infrastructure into the second and tertiary areas.” 6. The Growth Strategy section of the Land Use Chapter includes this objective, which is supported by responsibly regulated data center development due to economic changes and changing tax base conditions: “Ensure the managed development of appropriate and compatible land uses which is resilient to shifts and changes in the economy, real estate market and consumer demand, and responds to a changing tax base.” 7. Data centers, if regulated appropriately, can be located such that they can contribute to infrastructure development of the city. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2025-06 a. Exhibit A – Amendment to Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan B. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, Excerpts C. 2025 Monticello Official Zoning Map Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 14 D. Resources: a. “What is a Data Center” www.cisco.comc/en/us/solutions/data-center-virtualization/what-is-a-data- center.html, Publisher, Accessed January 30, 2025 b. “About the Data Center Industry” www.datacentercoalition.org/data-center-industry, Publisher, Accessed January 30, 2025 E. City of Monticello Joint Workshop, September 23, 2024 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-06 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2040 MONTICELLO VISION + PLAN (THE “COMPREHENSIVE PLAN”) MODIFYING RELATED CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS FOR THE INCLUSION OF “DATA CENTERS” WHEREAS, the City regulates land use through its Comprehensive Plan (currently the 2040 Monticello Vision + Plan), implemented through its development regulations, including its subdivision and zoning ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City utilizes a process for considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan from time to time, as various conditions or needs may warrant such considerations; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the best interests of the City’s land use goals and objectives, and reasonable flexibility for development planning and timing, would be best served by amending the current Comprehensive Plan to accommodate “data centers” as a unique land use category, new to the Monticello planning area; and WHEREAS, with the applicable amendment, the City would establish and retain land use control over projects of this type, to ensure more effective planning, cost-efficient development, and preservation of other City goals and objectives related to industrial and economic development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the amendments modifying the applicable sections of the Comprehensive Plan and their effect on the City’s land use plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 4th, 2025 on the proposal and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The City’s land use planning documents direct a balanced approach to development, requiring adherence to high standards of use, but also recognizing the needs of the private development market to efficiently plan for and finance that development. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-06 2 2. The City’s land use goals for industrial development as identified in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan include an emphasis on high-wage and high-volume employment, as well as tax-base stabilization and diversification. 3. The incorporation of data center development has the potential to accomplish tax-base stability and diversity. 4. The incorporation of data center development, due to its concentration of use has the potential to create employment that includes high-wage positions, and periodically, levels of employment that can be a component of the City’s economic development goals, even though total employment may be less than other industrial uses. 5. By retaining the ability to limit such uses in a controlled fashion, and only to suitable locations, the potential allowance of data center development can accommodate both the City’s economic development goals and objectives, as well as its interest in quality land planning. 6. The City may consider the following factors in permitting data center development, providing assurances that such development is advancing the City’s land use and economic development interests: a. Proximity to Residential Land Uses: The City will review data center development requests for compatibility with existing and future residential development areas. b. Noise and other Potential Site Impacts. The City will review and consider data center development only when concerns related to nuisance noise and/or other site impacts can be satisfactorily addressed with demonstrated data. c. Utility Demands: The City will require that the developer demonstrate adequate capacity and design to serve these users to the satisfaction of the City, without creating a shortage of capacity for other development. d. Transportation: The City will require that transportation impacts and demands are studied to ensure that road networks are maintained and advanced, and that capacity and/or design improvements are accounted for to the satisfaction of the City as a part of such development. e. The City will require that any such developer will study and detail transportation impacts and present a thorough and adequate multi-modal circulation plan, as determined by the City. f. Industrial Land Supply: The City will evaluate, and use as a consideration of approval or denial, whether adequate supplies of land to accommodate other CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-06 3 light-industrial development are available if data center development consumes large areas currently guided. g. The City will examine, and use as a consideration of approval or denial, whether the City’s current Orderly Annexation boundaries and Orderly Annexation Agreement expansion language will not negatively impact other land use and growth considerations as land is consumed by data center uses. h. Economic/Fiscal Issues: The City will require execution of development contracts including various financial tools and securities to ensure that the financial obligations of the developer will be met and bind future parties to achieve the goals of the projects under consideration. i. Electric Power Usage: Data center coordination with energy service providers and information on their permitting process may be a factor in local approval or denial. The information must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City whether the electric power supply can remain consistent and robust for others in and around the community, without threat of power loss due to the development of data centers in the community. j. The City will evaluate other site-specific considerations through applicable implementation tools, including the zoning and subdivision ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan as provided in in Exhibit A to this resolution be approved, based on the findings noted herein. ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 2025 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-06 4 ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-06 5 EXHIBIT A AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2040 MONTICELLO VISION + PLAN) THE MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2040 MONTICELLO VISION + PLAN) IS HEREBY AMENDED TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING UPDATES, REVISIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF THE PLAN. Section 1. The land use description of the Employment Campus (EC) designation is hereby amended to include the additional language: “Computer technology” land uses are intended and commonly read as technology jobs considering the employment goals of this land use category. Computer Technology excludes the development of low-employment technology land uses, including data centers. The Employment Campus designation is intended to apply to areas of Monticello where a high concentration of jobs is desired. Section 2. The land use description of the Light Industrial Park (LIP) designation is hereby amended to include the additional language: “Computer technology” includes active technology uses dominated by office and research- oriented businesses. The Light Industrial Designation accommodates Data Center (or similar “Technology Campus”) development for passive computer storage and processing only when specific elements are demonstrated. Consideration of these uses in the LIP areas shall be subject to the following review requirements, among others as determined on a case-by-case basis: a. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size and scope. b. Data center use locations will not create conflict with other land uses, especially residential land uses, through off-site impacts including unusual amounts of noise, lights, odors, or other similar aspects. Data center users will demonstrate site CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-06 6 conditions that meet this condition and are consistent with other light industrial development. c. Where data center development creates shortages in land supply, utility services, electric generation service to the broader area, or any other impacts on the City of Monticello or its neighboring communities, and which are not specifically mitigated by the data center developer and its associated partners, the City is under no obligation to accommodate the use within any land use district or location, or through any land use process. d. Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated by the data center project and its developers, and such mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent owners, users, and other related entities. e. The data center will not inhibit future growth; it will accommodate and facilitate the extension of efficient and orderly municipal infrastructure to the edge of the development property consistent with the City’s plans for growth. f. Full and clear assurances from both the data center use and the electric utility provider that data center development will not create threats of power loss to the community, nor limit the city’s other growth and development interests in the future. Data Center development is considered against each of these factors, and other site- or use- specific factors that may be relevant at the time of any such proposal. The City reserves the discretion to determine that any location or project has the potential to imperil the City’s infrastructure, related regional infrastructure, the City’s future land use goals, the City’s various economic development goals and objectives, the City’s financial and fiscal obligations and projections, or any other reasonable area of City authority. No area guided LIP (or any other land use category) shall have an inherent right to Data Center development under this amendment. Section 3: The land use description of the General Industrial (GI) designation is hereby amended to include the additional language: Technology campus or data center development is not viewed as appropriate in the General Industrial designation, as such land uses anticipate infrastructure that could be under- or over- utilized used by this land use designation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020 ADOPTION CHAPTER 3: LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 47 LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 48 INTRODUCTION The Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation Chapter outlines the goals, policies and land use strategy that will guide future land use development and decision- making in the community as well as in the Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). The MOAA is included in this land use plan to help plan for and ensure orderly and efficient growth, and to protect and maintain the MOAA until that growth occurs. This Chapter also serves to inform other aspects and chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, including transportation and mobility, housing, community facilities and parks and open space. Overall, the Future Land Use Plan will help define the pattern and location of development in the City for the next 20 years. Monticello desires a balanced land use pattern to ensure a stable and growing tax base that promotes economic diversity and resiliency to changes in the local, regional, state and national economy. The Future Land Use Plan describes a strategic, recommended pattern of land uses in the City and MOAA. The strategy also emphasizes the improvement and enhancement of Monticello’s downtown and surrounding traditional neighborhood blocks, the repositioning of the City’s commercial areas to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities, and the diversification of the tax base through ongoing economic development efforts that promote job growth and expand existing employment centers. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) illustrates land use planning according to specific land use categories. In addition, this Chapter is an important tool for achieving Monticello’s environmental sustainability and public health goals. Specific policies and strategies are included that advance an efficient land use and transportation pattern to reduce greenhouse gases and promote clean air and water, provide new mobility options, support local businesses, and is accessible and inclusive of persons of all ages, races and physical capabilities. This Chapter supports goals for economic sustainability consistent with the Economic Development Chapter. This Chapter also integrates transportation strategies recommended in the Mobility and Connectivity Chapter with an aim toward implementing a complete multi-modal transportation system. This Chapter introduces concepts that reinforce goals and strategies for other chapters of the Monticello 2040 Plan, including Parks, Pathways and Open Space and Community Character. Land Use Categories Acreage Residential (Single-Family, Twin and Townhomes, Multi-Family, Manufactured)3,479 Agriculture 1,078 Vacant (Only Commercial and Industrial Designated Land)1,112 Infrastructure (Railway, ROW, Utility)465 Open Space (Natural Resources, Parks and Open Space)457 Commercial 425 Industrial 194 TABLE 3.1: EXISTING LAND USE ACREAGES (WITHIN CITY BOUNDARIES) Source: City of Monticello Geographic Information System (GIS) 2019 Existing Land Use Data Downtown Monticello Looking East on West Broadway Street LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 54 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND MAP Achieving Monticello’s planning goals and implementing its growth strategy requires an approach to City-wide land use that finds an appropriate balance between all land uses considering changing market conditions, development opportunities, and resident and stakeholder aspirations for Monticello’s future. A balance between such land uses is needed to protect neighborhoods, to provide recreational opportunities, to offer community gathering places, and to ensure a stable and growing tax base that promotes economic diversity and resiliency to economic changes. The Future Land Use Designations and Map will guide future land use decision- making and can be amended when circumstances or opportunities warrant a change in planning direction in the City. However, any changes to the Future Land Use Map should also be consistent with the larger community vision established through the comprehensive planning process. The Monticello City Council can only approve changes to the Land Use Designations and FLUM through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In total, there are 18 distinct land use designations, including six residential designations, four commercial and mixed-use designations, three industrial designations, two parks and open space designations, one public and institutional designation, one for the Development Reserve of the MOAA, and one for the Xcel MNGP. The land uses designations include: • Development Reserve (DR) • Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) • Parks and Recreation (PR) • Estate Residential (ER) • Low-Density Residential (LDR) • Traditional Residential (TR) • Mixed Neighborhood (MN) • Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) • Manufactured Home (MH) • Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) • Community Commercial (CC) • Regional Commercial (RC) • Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) • Light Industrial Park (LIP) • General Industrial (GI) • Employment Campus (EC) • Public and Institutional (P) • Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) Carlisle Village Residential Property, Source: City of Monticello MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 55MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN MONTICELLO, MN FUTURE LAND USE MAP - EXHIBIT 3.3 DECEMBER 2020 1 inch = 2,250 feet PROJECT TEAM: PREPARED FOR: CITY OF MONTICELLO THE LAKOTA GROUP WSB © 2020 THE LAKOTA GROUP City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 North 94 25 131 94 PIN E S T PIN E S T ELM S T ELM S T BRO A D W A Y S T BRO A D W A Y S T CHE L S E A R D CHE L S E A R D JA S O N A V E N E JA S O N A V E N E ED M O N S O N A V E ED M O N S O N A V E FE N N I N G A V E FE N N I N G A V E SCHOOL BLVDSCHOOL BLVD 85TH ST NE85TH ST NE COUNTY RD 39 NECOUNTY RD 39 NE COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE 80TH ST NE80TH ST NE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 2 3RD , 2020 ADOPTION FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) North MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 61 EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONS Monticello currently contains approximately 194 acres of land used for industrial and employment purposes. The industrial land in Monticello is generally located in the Otter Creek Business Park, along Chelsea Road between Edmonson Avenue and Fenning Avenue, and the Cargill complex in downtown. The Future Land Use Map includes approximately 1,729 acres of industrial and employment designated land to promote a strong industrial business sector represented by increased jobs and tax revenue generated for Monticello. The goals for developing workforce and tax base are found in the Economic Development Chapter of this plan. Three designations classify industrial and employment generating uses. Light Industrial Park This designation encourages the broadest range of industrial related land uses, including warehousing and distribution. Three large areas of the City are designated as Light Industrial Park. This includes Otter Creek Business Park and parcels located directly to the north on Chelsea Road. Two large portions of the MOAA have also been designated as such, including portions of the Northwest Study Area and a large area just south of the city boundary on the east side of Highway 25. The planning objective for expanding the amount of industrially designated land is to increase the number and types of industrial and employment generating businesses in Monticello. General Industrial The General Industrial designation applies to areas centered along Chelsea and Dundas Roads. These areas include uses that may require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, outdoor storage or parking of commercial service vehicles. Cargill’s facility adjacent to the Downtown is also designated as General Industrial. Employment Campus An Employment Campus designation applies to areas of Monticello where a high concentration of jobs is desired. The design character of these areas includes site and building design elements that incorporate landscaping, screening, and building treatments that promote a high-quality visual environment. Open spaces and smaller commercial uses or restaurants may be intermixed to serve the employment base. Other permitted employment uses may include advanced manufacturing, research and development, technology and communications, and professional and corporate office uses. Land Use Categories Acreage Light Industrial Park 757 General Industrial 220 Employment Campus 752 TABLE 3.4: FUTURE LAND USE EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL ACREAGES Source: WGI Industries Source: Cargill Kitchen Solutions Inc. MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 63 Land Use Categories Acreage Development Reserve 3,100 Open Space and Resource Conservation 1,171 City Parks and Recreation 418 Estate Residential 1,102 Low-Density Residential 2,198 Traditional Residential 74 Mixed Neighborhood 635 Mixed-Density Residential 348 Manufactured Home 135 Downtown Mixed-Use 48 Community Commercial 125 Regional Commercial 433 Commercial and Residential Flex 174 Light Industrial Park 757 General Industrial 220 Employment Campus 752 Public and Institutional 268 Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 616 TABLE 3.7: FUTURE LAND USE ACREAGES Note: This acreage includes both developed and undeveloped land within the City and MOAA. MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 65 Light Industrial Park Industrial Employment Campus Employment Public and Institutional Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Public Uses Nuclear Power General Industrial Industrial Cargill Kitchen Solutions Suburban ManufacturingUMC Monticello Great River Regional Library Xcel Energy Downtown Mixed-Use Community Commercial Regional Commercial Commercial and Residential Flex CommercialCommercialCommercial Commercial Cornerstone Cafe and Catering Co. Cub Foods Target NA Commercial Designations Industrial Designations Other Designations LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 80 Primary Mode Vehicular with access to collectors and arterials Transit or shuttle service Secondary Mode Pedestrian-friendly streetscape Bicycle facilities and parking MOBILITY 2018 Correlating Zoning DistrictZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District IBC Business Campus District EMPLOYMENT CAMPUS (EC) The Employment Campus designation is characterized by a campus-like environment on large parcels. It also provides a high level of amenities including pedestrian connections and architectural and landscape treatment that maintain high standards of visual quality in a campus like environment. Characteristics such as noise, vibration and odor do not occur or do not generate significant impacts. Hazardous materials handling and storage may also occur but must be stored indoors. This designation primarily applies to areas used for research and development, medical laboratories, advanced and light manufacturing, green and renewable technology development (not installations), computer technology, corporate headquarters and office campuses, and industrial engineering facilities. Some commercial uses such as restaurants and hotels are also allowed. CASE STUDY EXAMPLE July 10, 2023 Map Powered By Datafi ± 1 in = 332 FtCity Boundary Parcels LOT PATTERN DEVELOPMENT FORM • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.50 to 0.75 • Height - Up to 6 stories • Lot Area - N/A Employment • Research and Development • Advanced and Light Manufacturing • Green & Renewable Technology Development • Corporate Headquarters and Offices Campuses • Industrial Engineering Facilities LAND USE MIX Commercial • Restaurant • Child Care • Corporate Hotel Recreational • Plaza • Public Space LAND USE MIX MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 81 Primary Mode Vehicular with access to collectors and arterials Transit or shuttle service Secondary Mode Shared bike/ pedestrian facilities MOBILITY DEVELOPMENT FORM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK (LIP) The Light Industrial designation accommodates a variety of light industrial uses. Uses are characterized by a higher level of amenities not required in the General Industrial designation. Characteristics such as noise, vibration and odor do not occur or do not generate significant impacts. Hazardous materials handling and storage may also occur but must be stored indoors or screened from the public right-of-way. Activities such as the handling of hazardous materials and outdoor storage are limited. This land use designation does not include the principal retail commercial uses found in the Employment Campus and a more limited range of commercial activities. Transportation impacts which occur are in direct support of the manufacturing or production use. The Light Industrial land use is distinguished from General Industrial land use by reduced potential for noise, visibility, truck activity, storage and other land use impacts. The Light Industrial Designation accommodates uses such as processing, assembly, production, and fabrication manufacturing which uses moderate amounts of partially processed materials, warehousing and distribution, research and development, medical laboratories, machine shops, computer technology, and industrial engineering facilities. Office uses also occur within these areas. This designation also accommodates limited local-serving commercial uses which may generate storage or noise impacts. • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.50 to 0.75 • Height - Up to 4 stories • Lot Area - N/A LOT PATTERN LAND USE MIX Industrial • Warehousing and Distribution • Light Manufacturing • Assembly • Production & Fabrication • Research and Development • Medical Laboratories • Computer Technology Commercial • Minor Auto-Repair • Self Storage VISUAL EXAMPLE 2018 Correlating Zoning DistrictZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District I-1 Light Industrial District IBC Industrial Business Campus (Amended March 2023; Resolution 2023-27) LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 82 LAND USE MIX Industrial • Manufacturing • Warehouse and Distribution Operations • Recycling Facilities • Production Brewing • Construction and Contracting Yards • Machinery/Truck Repair Commercial • Major Auto Repair • Commercial Entertainment/ Outdoor Recreation GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) The General Industrial designation allows for a variety of industrial uses that may need separation from residential or commercial uses. These uses have the potential to generate off-site impacts including noise, odors, and vibration. Buffering, screening and landscape treatments may be required to enhance public rights-of-way and ensure land use compatibility. Transportation needs and impacts beyond those in direct support of a site-specific manufacturing or production use may occur but require additional consideration or mitigation. This designation includes manufacturing, production and assembly, wholesale trade, production brewing, contracting yards, warehousing and distribution terminals and other industrial uses that may need separation from residential or commercial uses. This designation also accommodates limited local-serving commercial uses which may generate storage or noise impacts. VISUAL EXAMPLE LOT PATTERN DEVELOPMENT FORM • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.50 to 0.75 • Height - Up to 2 stories • Lot Area - N/A Primary Mode Vehicular with access to collectors and arterials Transit or shuttle service Secondary Mode Shared bike/ pedestrian facilities MOBILITY 2018 Correlating Zoning DistrictZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District I-2 Heavy Industrial District LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION GOALS Listed below are the land use goals which were informed by the Community Vision. For the complete set of policies and strategies for the goals refer to the Implementation Chapter. GOAL 1: GROWTH AND CHANGE A City that prioritizes growth inward by concentrating development activities within the existing city boundaries and grows or develops into the Orderly Annexation Area only when development is proposed or planned contiguous to city boundaries, sensitive open space lands are protected and thoughtfully incorporated into the development pattern, and the land is serviced by appropriate utility and transportation systems. GOAL 2: COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS A City that prioritizes growth inward by concentrating development activities within the existing city boundaries and grows or develops into the Orderly Annexation Area only when development is proposed or planned contiguous to city boundaries, sensitive open space lands are protected and thoughtfully incorporated into the development pattern, and the land is serviced by appropriate utility and transportation systems. GOAL 3: SUCCESSFUL COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS AND CENTERS Successful, vibrant commercial centers and corridors that can adapt over time and provide a place for shopping, services, civic activities, entertainment, and arts and culture. GOAL 4: REVITALIZED MIXED-USE DOWNTOWN A revitalized mixed-use downtown that embraces the River and serves as the heart of the community and focus of civic activity that is lively throughout the day and night consisting of a variety of dining, shopping, recreation, celebrating, gathering and living opportunities. GOAL 5: ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS Monticello as a strong and growing regional employment center including a variety of economic sectors established as the preferred location for manufacturing, technology, research, and development, and home to a diverse mix of businesses and industries. GOAL 6: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE An open space “frame” around and woven through Monticello, complemented by the Mississippi River, Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park, other local and regional parks, trails and recreation areas which together protect the City’s natural resources, lakes, wetlands and woodlands, and provide opportunities for recreation, enhance visual beauty, and shape the City’s character. MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 95 CHAPTER 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 115 120 Diversifying Local Economy Prior to 2020, the City has completed a number of economic development projects including the Dalheimer Beverage and Bondhus Corporation expansions, and the Monticello RV Center. Together those projects have provided additional jobs and tax base for Monticello. A major issue facing the community on the diversification of the local tax base is the suitability of land for future development. The City of Monticello completed an industrial park land absorption study in 2019 that indicated that the community did have a limited supply of industrial property available for development. The City of Monticello has a very diverse employment base even when the nuclear generating station is included in the overall employment numbers. This diversity will help the community as it works to replace the positions lost with the decommissioning of the Xcel MNGP. Monticello’s top industries by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes includes Retail Trade, Health Care & Social Assistance, Professional, Scientific, & Tech Services, Real Estate Rental & Leasing, Construction, and Manufacturing. Together those industries account for over 50% of the City’s employment base. Employer NAICS Code Products/Services Employee Count Xcel Energy Nuclear Power (Xcel MNGP)221113 Electric Power Generation 700 Monticello ISD #888 611110 Public School System 576 CentraCare Health System 62210 General Medical-Surgical Hospital 500 Cargill Kitchen Solutions 42440 Egg based food products 433 Walmart Store 452311 Supercenter Discount Retail Store 325 Ultra Machine Corporation 339112 Precision Manufacturing 200 Home Depot 452311 Supercenter/Discount Retail Store 160 Target Store 452311 Supercenter/Discount Home Store 150 WSI/Polaris 336310 Precision Machining, Engine Parts 130 Cub Foods Grocery 445110 Supermarket Grocery Store 100 Bondhus 332216 Tools/Wrenches/Screwdrivers 103 Dahlheimer Beverage 424810 Beer Distributor 96 Genereux-Westland 337212 Cabinets/Cabinet Parts Distribution 67 Suburban Manufacturing 333914 Lubrication/Filter System Components 65 Production Stamping 336370 Metal Stamping Fittings/Gaskets/Parts 62 Twin Cities Die Cast 331523 Aluminum/Magnesium Die Casting 62 Camping World 441210 Camping Vehicle Sales 55 Aroplax Plastic Injection Molded Parts 52 Karlsburger Foods 311421 Soup, Sauce and Base Foods 49 TABLE 5.2: TOP MONTICELLO EMPLOYERS CentraCare - Monticello, Source: City of Monticello ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 123 Pending Closure of Xcel Nuclear Generating Plant (Xcel MNGP) Monticello has taken a proactive approach to assessing and diversifying its tax base. Monticello’s largest taxpayer, Xcel Energy, had previously planned for its nuclear power generation plant in Monticello to be decommissioned in 2030. However, it recently submitted a new long-term resource plan to the Minnesota utility regulators stating its intention to extend the license ten more years to 2040. Recognizing that the future is uncertain with respect to the Xcel generating facility, the City of Monticello is actively working to diversify its tax base and increase employment with additional commercial and industrial businesses. This is important as not only is Xcel Energy the largest employer within the community, it is also the largest tax payer in Monticello. Looking long-term, Monticello will have to seek other sources of revenue such as increased property taxes as the pending closure of Xcel nears. The City of Monticello collects approximately 30% of the total tax capacity generated within its municipal boundary. The remaining two thirds of the taxes are distributed to Wright County and the School District with the remaining ten percent being distributed to special taxing districts. The total net tax capacity for 2018 was $29,528,145. The City of Monticello collected approximately 30% of that amount resulting in $8,858,443 being collected by the City. In the same year Xcel had a tax capacity of $4,888,283 which amounted to 55% of the City’s total annual tax base in 2018. The amount Xcel pays has been decreasing since 2016 due to changes in the formula for the determining of property valuations for generating stations. The percentage has also been decreasing due in part to the overall increase in tax capacity in Monticello as a result of recent development projects. This scenario is expressed in Table 6.4. In total Northern States Power has approximately 450 acres currently under site control with frontages on Interstate 94 as well as the Mississippi River. The land use for Xcel MNGP is reserved exclusively for their facility since they have now requested licensing through the year 2040. 2018 Total City Tax Capacity $29,528,145 City Percent of the Total Taxes Received by City 30% 2018 Total Taxes Paid to City $8,858,443 2018 Total Xcel Tax Capacity $16,294,278 Portion of Xcel Taxes Paid to City 30% 2018 Xcel City Tax Capacity $4,888,283 Percent of Xcel Taxes to Total Taxes Paid 55% TABLE 5.4: NORTHERN STATES POWER (XCEL ENERGY) COMPANY TAX ANALYSIS Xcel Energy Facility, Source: Monticello Chamber of Commerce Brochure (1980s)Monticello Mall, Source: Monticello Chamber of Commerce Brochure (1980s) 126 The flow of employees to jobs outside of the City, or into the City while living in a different area occurs for several reasons. Attracting employees can be the result of livable wage positions that may not be available in the areas that they live. It can also be a result of the employee being attached to their existing community because of the school system, family, or other personal reasons. Another issue that can affect the attraction of employees to a community is the availability of housing to meet their needs. As families move through their career paths and family status, their housing needs change and will rely on communities to provide that lifecycle housing. WORKFORCE HOUSING As a city actively developing, Monticello is taking a careful yet proactive approach to planning land use and density to ensure adequate amounts of land are guided to provide opportunities for a full range of “life cycle” housing options. The City is especially looking for opportunities to develop a range of life-cyle and “step- up” housing options as a way to attract new industrial development and jobs that offers higher paying wages. Existing Housing Value Assessment The measure of affordability of a housing unit compares housing cost to gross household income. The general standard is that housing is affordable if housing expenses equal 30% or less of a person’s gross household income. Tables 6.5 and 6.6 demonstrates the value of the City of Monticello’s housing stock in comparison to the entirety of Wright County. Notably, 46% of the City of Monticello’s housing stock is valued between $150,000 - $250,000 compared to 29% of Wright County housing stock of the same value (refer to Table 6.5 and 6.6). This aligns with the data that suggests housing prices are increasing in Monticello compared to the County. It is important that a range of affordable housing stock in the community is maintained while also providing housing products in the higher values as well. Affordable Workforce Housing The City completed (2020) a comprehensive housing study that assesses the housing needs for the community. It is imperative that any successful economic development policies and strategies allow for the development of life-cycle housing to allow for the continued growth of the community. The policies and strategies from the housing study have been incorporated into this plan. A generally accepted standard is that in order to develop new affordable housing, the development needs to be a minimum of eight units per acre. Based on the City’s future land use plan 986 acres would allow for residential development at eight units or more per acre. While the City has created a land use plan that permits areas at greater density, barriers to development of affordable housing still exist. Some of these barriers are beyond the City’s control including, but not limited to: • Steady increases in land prices and State and County tax structures • Increase in construction costs. When combined with land prices, it becomes more difficult to provide affordable units through new construction. • Property constraints from wetlands, woodlands, soils, poor access or others. • Availability of regional public transit options within the City. The goals, policies, and strategies section includes specific efforts to pursue as it relates to offering a range of affordable housing options. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES In the next 20 years the City will face a variety of issues as well as opportunities related to economic development. Many of these issues are larger in scale and will require regional and state partners to address them, especially as related to transportation and infrastructure. Tax Base Diversification One of the primary issues facing the City will be sourcing new tax revenue and normalizing the City’s financial system. The City’s tax base relies heavily on the Xcel MNGP which is a finite revenue stream and will eventually be gone. Communities with diverse tax bases are resilient to shifts and fluctuations in the economy more so than communities that have a single large taxpayer or a majority of businesses in a single industry or sector. When the generating station is excluded from the equation, the City’s largest single taxpayer makes up only 2.3% of the total tax capacity. This allows the city to have significant stability as it replaces the Xcel MNGP taxes. However, this diversity requires the community to look to multiple projects to help fill the pending gap but also allows for the development of industry clusters to provide both tax base and employment opportunities. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 127 Workforce Development The success of workforce development requires that the City develop a plan for development and training of the required work force. Creating and maintaining strong relationships with businesses is critical to identify needs and assist with the coordination between the training institutions to teach the required skills. This will also help identify potential funding sources further strengthening those relationships. The attraction of new livable wage employment opportunities is important to allow for the continued success of the local economy as well as attraction of new businesses and employment opportunities. The retention of existing businesses and employees in the community will maintain a workforce and help attract the needed workers to fill these positions. Workforce Housing The City has a limited number of step-up type housing and senior housing units. The community does have a significant number of “entry” level housing which limits the community’s ability to retain residents that seek housing units with a greater level of amenities. These residents, while working in Monticello, live in the surrounding communities resulting in the City losing the opportunity to benefit from the retail spending and additional tax base of higher value homes. In addition to the shortage of move up housing, the City also has a limited number of senior housing opportunities. This limited supply results in older residents staying in their homes and those homes not being available for new residents. If the older residents move to another community for housing, Monticello loses their retail activity which is generally higher than younger residents further reducing growth and economic stability. The city also has a limited number of multi-family units to allow for the workforce required for the jobs that are being created through the expansion and attraction of businesses. As people are changing or beginning their careers, finding affordable housing is a pressing need and can be a primary factor in their success or failure. Regardless of the success of creating employment opportunities, if workers cannot live in the community and become part of the socio-economic fabric of the community, then the success will be short lived. Transportation Improvements Monticello will continue to plan for the completion of its comprehensive roadway and pathway system. Transportation costs are a major factor for businesses evaluating new locations. A well-maintained transportation network connected to the larger regional network will be critical for attracting new business and diversifying to warehousing and distribution sectors. The continued planning and development of the transportation system improvements including a potential interchange with major transportation arteries will also allow for the continued growth of Monticello. The City will also need to commit resources to the continued maintenance of the existing infrastructure to support the local economy. Bridge Traffic Presently, State Highway 25 is the only river crossing in the City and greater region. A new bridge crossing would help alleviate traffic congestion on Highway 25 and also provide options for emergency access. However, Highway 25 results in motorists traveling through the City’s downtown that serve as possible customers for local businesses. Transportation improvements could alleviate some congestion and also improve east/west walkability through downtown Monticello. A new bridge in the region is a long term improvement and requires considerable investment and additional study, but would also will reduce the amount of traffic flowing through downtown, especially on the weekends. Monticello needs to continue to be an active member in the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning group as they work towards siting and eventually development of a new river crossing to maximize the benefit to the City. COVID-19 Pandemic Response The City proactively responded to the business community to support business operations during the global COVID-19 pandemic. The City approved temporary loan forbearance requests and an emergency grant program to assist those businesses with outstanding loans that have been negatively affected by the pandemic. This loan forbearance helped to ensure employers continue to retain employees. The long-term effects of the pandemic will not be known until after adoption of this plan. MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 131 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS Listed below are the economic development goals which were informed by the Community Vision. For the complete set of policies and strategies for the goals refer to the Implementation Chapter. GOAL 1: BUSINESS ATTRACTION AND RETENTION A successful business attraction and retention program that attracts new businesses and retains existing businesses. GOAL 2: TAX BASE EXPANSION A stable and expanding tax base that diversifies the city’s economy and creates a sustainable employment to offset the eventual closure of the Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. GOAL 3: DOWNTOWN VITALITY A vibrant and thriving Downtown that contributes to the City’s economic development and housing objectives. GOAL 4: REDEVELOPMENT AND REINVESTMENT Redevelopment of vacant and underutilized parcels consistent with meeting the City’s economic development, land use and community design objectives. GOAL 5: LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING Monticello will be a community with a wide variety of housing options that includes workforce, starter, step up, and senior housing to allow for new and existing residents to remain and age in the community. GOAL 6: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT A workforce development and training program that provides the skills and knowledge needed for a wide range of jobs and opportunities. GOAL 7: PROMOTION AND PARTNERSHIPS Collaborative Partnerships and the Promotion of Monticello Economic Development Projects, Programs and Activities. GOAL 8: OPPORTUNITY FOCUS AREAS Reinvestment, redevelopment and overall improvement of the opportunity focus areas within the City. MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 131 MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 185 CHAPTER 9: IMPLEMENTATION 185 190 Industrial and Employment Generating Areas The City uses three zoning districts to classify its industrial land based on use and locational aspects. Three new land use designations have been created based on these districts. The existing zoning district standards and their basic hierarchy is expected to remain, with development standards and use restrictions tailored to accommodate the particular needs of different industry types. However, the City may need to amend the zoning code to accommodate a range of new and modern industrial and employment generating uses, with consideration for any specific operational characteristics associated with such uses. The City should also continue to address potential impacts from industrial uses to nearby non-industrial uses. This is implemented through the zoning and the development review process, as well as the zoning ordinance performance standards that reduce the potential for land use conflicts. Strategies to reduce impacts related to vehicle storage, excessive dust and noise, landscaping and screening, and exterior lighting requirements can be included. Downtown Monticello The strategy for Downtown will rely on the City’s Downtown Small Area Plan. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan to achieve the vision of the Downtown will require a consistent approach between both planning documents. However, the Downtown Plan is the guiding document. Adjustments, as needed, to the existing zoning code will be one of the first steps. A significant catalytic project is needed to change perceptions of the Downtown. It is recommended that the City concentrate public investments in areas of the Downtown where a new sense of place can emerge. The City should actively promote and work towards a catalytic development project to help create a sense of place in the Downtown. This could include the Walnut Street corridor streetscape plan and connecting Walnut Street to River Street. New development projects, in particular Block 52, would make an exciting statement to the Mississippi riverfront and enliven this part of the Downtown. A new streetscape and new development along Walnut Street will reinforce the character of the corridor and connect the Downtown core near the riverfront to the Monticello Community Center, Cargill and other activity generators south of the Downtown. Mixed Neighborhoods & Commercial/Residential Flex Districts The Comprehensive Plan includes a new land use designation labeled Mixed Neighborhood. The purpose of this designation is to recognize areas of Monticello where a mix of residential housing types is the predominant use but could also have neighborhood serving commercial development that provides goods and services generally needed on a day-to-day basis. Commercial uses would typically be very small up to 1,000 square feet, while other areas near East Bertram designated MN may have larger neighborhoods which necessitate larger neighborhood centers. The City will need to amend the Zoning Code accordingly to accommodate such uses. Another new land use designation included in the Comprehensive Plan is referred to as Commercial/Residential Flex (CRF). The purpose of the Commercial/ Residential Flex designation is to give the City and property owners flexibility for future land use based on the economy and market demand. This designation allows a mix of flexible and compatible uses, such as commercial, office, retail and residential, in limited areas of the City on the same or adjacent properties. Development and improvement of properties designated as CRF will be implemented through the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning process, subject to review and approval of the City. CHELSEA COMMONS A B C CONNECT TO CITY PATHWAY SYSTEM PERIMETER TRAIL POND/WATER FEATURE WATER ACCESS PROPOSED PARK POTENTIAL BRIDGE CROSSING POTENTIAL TUNNEL CROSSING Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, 1 inch = 855 feet Legend Monticello Parcels Monti Water Bodies Wetlands Chelsea Rd. Chelsea Rd. Dundas Rd. Dundas Rd. MN 2 5 MN 2 5 Ced a r S t . Ced a r S t . Oa k w o o d D r . Oa k w o o d D r . Sch o o l B l v d . Sch o o l B l v d . MIXED NEIGHBORHOOD CHELSEA COMMONS PARK CONCEPT CHELSEA COMMONS A B C CONNECT TO CITY PATHWAY SYSTEM PERIMETER TRAIL POND/WATER FEATURE WATER ACCESS PROPOSED PARK POTENTIAL BRIDGE CROSSING POTENTIAL TUNNEL CROSSING Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, 1 inch = 855 feet Legend Monticello Parcels Monti Water Bodies Wetlands Chelsea Rd. Chelsea Rd. 37 37 NENE Dundas Rd. Dundas Rd. 37 37 NENE School Blvd . School Blvd . 37 NE37 NE MN 2 5 MN 2 5 Ced a r S t . Ced a r S t . IMPLEMENTATION Cou n t y H w y 7 5 Chels e a R d Sta t e H w y 2 5 85th St NE 90th S t N E Lin n S t Pin e S t E 7th S t School Blvd Riverview Dr Ced a r S t W Ri v e r S t M a r v i n R d Jason Ave NE Dundas Rd W Br o a d w a y S t H a r t B l v d Co u n t r y L n Ha u g A v e N E Elm S t W 4t h S t Fe n n i n g A v e N E Oa k w o o k D r Mallard Ln 95th St NE Fa l l o n A v e N E Ed m o n s o n A v e N E Mississi p p i D r W 5t h S t W 7 t h S t Sa n d b e r g R d Pe l i c a n L n Falcon Dr Fe n n i n g A v e N E Waln u t S t Oa k R i d g e D r N Or i o l e L n Club View Rd Br o a d w a y S t Hillcrest Rd E Riv e r S t Hedm a n L n Mi l l T r a i l L n Fa l l o n A v e N E Wrig h t S t New S t Ma r v i n E l w o o d R o a d Ram s e y S t W 6t h S t River Mill D r Wildwood Way Hilltop Dr Mill Run Rd Oakview Ln Fa r m s t e a d A v e Martin Dr E 3rd S t E 3rd S t Re d R o c k L n Gil l a r d A v e N E Map l e S t Fallon Dr Will o w S t Eas t w o o d L n Gr a y s t o n e A v e Ma r v i n E l w o o d R d Fie l d c r e s t C i r Fa i r w a y D r Jaso n A v e N E Vin e S t Meadow Ln Jer r y L i e f e r t D r Praire Road Starling Dr Palm S t Fa l l o n A v e N E Golf Course Rd Fall o n A v e N E Kevin Longley Dr Cra i g L n Re d O a k L n Fron t S t W 5 t h S t Thomas Park Dr Loc u s t S t Mockingbird Ln W 3r d S t Ea s t w o o d C i r Briar Oaks Blvd F a r m s t e a d D r Hen n e p i n S t Ei d e r L n Oak L n River Forest Dr Meadow Oak Ave Kampa Cir O a k R i d g e C i r Mill Ct River Ridge Ln Oa k v i e w C t Du n d a s C i r Ke n n e t h L n Ot t e r C r e e k R d Min n e s o t a S t Ea g l e C i r Cro c u s L n M e a d o w O a k L n Stoneridge Dr Che s t n u t S t 120th St N E Da r r o w A v e N E Diamond Dr Pebblebrook Dr Wi d g e o n L n Wash i n g t o n S t Bu n k e r C i r Hom e s t e a d D r Th o m a s C i r E n d i c o t t T r Ce n t e r C i r Oak v i e w C i r Sa n d t r a p C i r Country Cir Cheyenne Ct Te r r i t o r a l R d Ta n a g e r C i r Hillc r e s t C i r Osprey Cir Ac o r n C i r Ba l b o u l C i r S w a l l o w C i r Riverside C i r Me a d o w O a k C t Ma t t h e w C i r East Oak Dr Stonerid g e C i r Oa k w o o d D r Mea d o w O a k D r Co u n t y H w y 7 5 Har t B l v d Mi n n e s o t a S t Elm S t Wri g h t S t 90th St NE Ced a r S t Min n e s o t a S t 1 2 3 4 7 5 8 9 10 11 12 6 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 20 22 23 2426 25 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map :Legend BASE ZONING DISTRICTS PUD Districts Residential Districts -- Low Residential Densities A-O R-A R-1 Business Districts B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 CCD* -- Medium Residential Densities T-N R-2 R-PUD -- High Residential Densities R-3 R-4 M-H Mills Fleet Farm Red Rooster Swan River Monticello High School 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Spaeth Industrial Park Camping World Affordable Storage Autumn Ridge Villas OTHER Water Industrial Districts IBC I-1 I-2 OVERLAY DISTRICTS Shoreland District** Special Use Overlay District ! !! !! Freeway Bonus Sign District 09 Rivertown Suites 10 Monticello RV 11 Deephaven 12 Twin Pines 13 UMC 14 Edmonson Ridge 18 Monticello Lakes 17 Stony Brook Village 16 Storagelink Monticello 15 Nuss Truck and Equipment Addition 1 inch = 2,500 feet 0.2% Floodplain Boundary** 19 Hoglund Bus Park 20 Block 52 21 Country Club Manor 2nd Addition 22 Haven Ridge 2nd Addition 23 Great River Addition Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District** *See CCD and Pointes at Cedar Sub-District Appendix Zoning Maps **See Floodplain, Shoreland, and MWSRR Appendix Zoning Map ***Floodplain is established and effective per FIRM panels 27171C0155D, 27171C0160D, 27171C0160D, 27171C0170D, 27171C0190D PCD* 1% Floodplain Boundary** 24 Big River Addition 25 Haven Ridge West 26 Cedar Street Storage Adopted January 13th, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 1 2B. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” re-guiding certain parcels from their existing Development Reserve designations to alternative Light Industrial Park designation. Applicant: Monticello Tech LLC Prepared by: Grittman Consulting, Stephen Grittman, City Planner Meeting Date: 02/04/2025 Council Date (pending Commission action): 02/24/25 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, City Administrator, Community & Economic Development Coordinator, Economic Development Manager ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of Amendment to Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan Future Land Use Map 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-07 recommending approval of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” re-guiding certain parcels as described in the resolution from their existing Development Reserve designations to alternative Light Industrial Park designation, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution PC-2025-07 recommending approval of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation” re-guiding certain parcels from their existing Development Reserve designations to alternative Light Industrial Park designation, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2025-07. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Lengthy-Contact City Hall PID #s: 213-100-271300, -262300; -262200; -262400; -271100, - 271301, -271302 Planning Case Number: 2025.03 Request(s): An Amendment to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 3, “Land Use, Growth and Orderly Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 2 Annexation” re-guiding certain parcels from their existing Development Reserve designations to alternative Light Industrial Park designation on the Future Land Use Map. Deadline for Decision: March 8, 2025 (60-day deadline) May 7, 2025 (120-day deadline) Land Use Designation: Development Reserve Zoning Designation: N/A Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: N/A Current Site Uses: Agricultural Surrounding Land Uses: North: Vacant/Agricultural - MOAA East: Vacant/Agricultural/Rural Residential - MOAA South: Environmental/Rural Residential - MOAA West: Vacant/Agricultural - MOAA Project Description: The applicants seek to reguide an area of approximately 253 acres located south of the city to “Light Industrial Park”. The area is currently guided by the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan) as “Development Reserve”. The subject area abuts another 300 acres (approximately) to the north, which is currently guided as Light Industrial Park. If the amendment is approved, the entire area would be guided as Light Industrial Park, and then subject to zoning and subdivision actions necessary to facilitate any development. ANALYSIS: Context The applicant seeks to amend the Monticello 2040 Future Land Use Map to reguide a 250+ acre area from its current “Development Reserve” designation to “Light Industrial Park,” consistent with the balance of property directly adjacent to the north. The applicant previously presented an initial concept for the development of a data center technology campus to the City during a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and City Council. The concept development area represented approximately 550 acres, which included Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 3 both the approximately 250 acre land area subject to this request, as well as the approximately 300 acre areas directly north of the site. The land area to the north is contiguous to the current City boundary and the full 550-acre area is within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). Site development as a data center is not the subject of this request. The consideration of this application is whether the “Light Industrial Park” land use designation is appropriate for the application subject area given the City’s growth and land use goals as outlined within its adopted Monticello 2040 Vision +Plan (Comprehensive Plan). Development of the site would require further future application and separate consideration by the City. 2040 Land Use Planning In the 2040 Monticello Vision + Plan, the City undertook a complete update of its long-term land use planning. The 2040 Plan is the foundational document on which the City makes decisions regarding its future growth. The 2040 Plan includes planning strategies for land areas within the City and to the extent of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. The 2040 document illustrates a vision for the community over a 20-year period, incorporating Land Use (including Annexation), Transportation/Mobility, Economic Development, Parks, Infrastructure/Utilities, Community Character, and other elements. The Plan further includes a chapter on Implementation, with an extensive set of strategies for achieving the vision and planning laid out in the 2040 Plan. First among the implementation goals, within the category “Growth and Change,” is the acknowledgment that the City intends to prioritize development of the community from within, extending into “Secondary” or “Tertiary” areas when “development is proposed or planned contiguous to city boundaries, sensitive open space lands are protected and thoughtfully incorporated into the development pattern, and the land is serviced by appropriate utility and transportation systems.” These areas are further described as follows: Secondary Growth: The Secondary Growth areas include the designated Planning Areas, and properties in the MOAA designated a specific land use. This includes, but is not limited to, the Northwest and East Bertram Planning Areas, residential development in the southern and eastern portions of Monticello, the CSAH 39 corridor and the Highway 25 corridor south of the city boundary. Tertiary Growth: The Development Reserve of the MOAA represents a rural Tertiary Growth area considered over a much longer development period. These areas are generally not contiguous to city boundaries and require utility, infrastructure and transportation studies prior to development. These areas, which are protected from Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 4 development by MOAA land use controls, may have positive attributes attractive for development proposals but also have the size and land area that warrant a longer term, phased development approach determined by the City’s progress in the primary and secondary growth areas, housing demand, economic conditions and infrastructure spending. The Plan next notes that development into these areas may occur in the following language: Policy 1.2: Growth Management to Achieve Goal - Adopt and maintain growth management tools which prioritize development within the existing city boundary first as the primary growth area and then into the Planning Areas and some adjacent MOAA areas as a secondary option and then into Development Reserve of the MOAA as the last option. There may be exceptions to this when utilities and transportation infrastructure is readily available. Current Land Use Designation In support of its overall goals for growth, the 2040 Plan separates land uses within broad categories reflective of the activity and impacts that may occur. These include designations for residential, commercial, industrial, and open space land uses. The applicant’s request is to re-guide a 250 acre portion of land so that it is consistent with land use guidance to the north. The area is located within a Tertiary Growth Area of the Plan and is currently designated on the 2040 Plan’s Future Land Use Map as “Development Reserve”. The land area directly to the north, and directly adjacent to the current City boundary, is guided as “Light Industrial Park”. The Development Reserve designation is intended as a reserve designation for properties that may be converted to other uses in the future. The intent of the Development Reserve is to preserve land for future development, including land for transportation and utility corridors needed to serve future development. This allows the City to evaluate growth and development based on the noted utility, transportation and infrastructure studies. The Light Industrial Park designation accommodates a wide variety of manufacturing, storage, office, and other similar uses. In considering the amendment, the City is making a determination whether the requested Light Industrial Park designation is appropriate for the area. Land Use Amendment Analysis Within the Implementation chapter of the 2040 Plan, the document identifies the Zoning Ordinance as one of the primary implementation tools for land use. The Zoning Ordinance includes a process for considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including the following analytical requirements: Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 5 (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses the need resulting from some changing condition, trend, or fact arising since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan; (c) The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; (d) Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public; (e) The impacts on the natural and built environments, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetation, drainage, streets, and other engineering design or environmental factors; (f) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property; whether the proposed design and land uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient development within the city; (g) Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; and (h) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of this chapter. These evaluation criteria are intended to support the City as it considers amendments to the 2040 Plan. These criteria are addressed individually for the subject proposal in the following paragraphs. (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses the need resulting from some changing condition, trend, or fact arising since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Comment: The applicants suggest that the amendment is intended to propose a land use category for the previously unstudied Development Reserve portion of the potential development area. The Development Reserve area is described in the Comprehensive Plan as “Tertiary” growth area – within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA), but with undesignated land use direction. The Development Reserve designation was applied given the City’s direction to grow primarily from within, with tertiary land areas beyond the 2040 plan’s forecasted growth, and requiring addition information on the infrastructure improvements needed to serve the area. In this regard, the large land areas necessary to support the scale of development envisioned by the applicants necessitates land at the “edge” of the Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 6 City’s growth horizon. The applicant also proposes to identify how the area is appropriate for the provision of infrastructure services. Consistent with other themes of this criterion, the interest in technology centers such as the data center concept reasonably represents the type of “changing conditions and trends” that can support consideration of the proposed land use map amendment in question. While the onset of a new type of development meets this criteria, the City is not obligated to accommodate it. Consistency with the other requirements of growth is still key to considering these types of expansions, as is the style of development, and whether it supports the City’s other Land Use and Economic Development goals. That said, the nature of the proposed land use can be viewed as meeting the minimum requirements of this condition. (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Comment: The proposed amendment expands the City’s extensive guidance of industrial land area, a key aspect of the Comprehensive Plan’s Economic Development chapter. Growth of industrial land supply which meets all attendant requirements for services, land use compatibility, and other necessary elements supports 2040 objectives for tax base creation and diversification, as well as employment opportunity. The applicant’s narrative notes the proposal “does not conflict” with this requirement. As such, the expectation would be that the eventual use of the land will be consistent with the achievement of these objectives. The proposed technology campus is, however, a new kind of industrial use that consumes much greater amounts of land than more “traditional” industrial development. The City will need to evaluate the ability to maintain its industrial land supply and a balance of industrial types if the data center use is incorporated into the industrial landscape. (c) The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan identifies two primary objectives of industrial development – tax base and employment. The expansion of light industrial land use would be consistent, generally, with these objectives. For this particular purpose, the conceptual development proposed would primarily provide tax base, since the technology use proposed creates only limited levels of employment. Nonetheless, the tax-base aspect is an important factor, given Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 7 the City’s traditional reliance on Xcel Energy as a significant factor in its fiscal stability. Broadening the base can be seen as a healthy fiscal strategy, and consistent with the 2040 Plan’s goal of tax base diversification. Integral to this assumption is that the use, if developed, facilitates and pays for its own infrastructure needs without relying on City funds, and at the same time, would not seek subsidies or exemptions from its property tax payment levels. Regardless of the conceptual data center campus, the re-guidance of this land area as light industrial presents additional opportunity for tax base and employment generation for the City. (d) Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public; Staff Comment: There would be no expectation that the proposed land use map amendment, or the development subsequent to the amendment, would raise these issues. This comment is made in the context that any development is properly served by utility services which do not burden the City, that compatibility issues with adjacent land uses will be addressed, and that access to emergency services are clear and unobstructed. (e) The impacts on the natural and built environments, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetation, drainage, streets, and other engineering design or environmental factors; Staff Comment: Development within the City that meets the City’s various standards should raise no issue with this requirement, and the scale of development concept would require other environmental review. The primary issue for this particular site relates to the chain of water/wetland bodies at the south boundary of the planning area. This chain has been identified as a key asset in the City’s Natural Resources Inventory, and is expected to play a role in the long-term development of the City’s greenway and pathway system development. While amendment to the land use map does not necessarily degrade the feasibility of this goal, review of development details would be important to ensure that it is designed to both protect and support these systems. The introduction of a data center campus under the light industrial designation does have potential implications for transportation network. The relatively low employment density may result in a lower impact to the nearby TH 25 and collector route system than if the site were to develop under other use designations, or even a more intense industrial pattern. TH 25 through Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 8 Monticello is a congested corridor, and the lower traffic generation of a data center project, presuming that is the ultimate development, will be beneficial to the Trunk Highway (or at least, not exacerbate existing issues). (f) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property; whether the proposed design and land uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient development within the city; Staff Comment: Of the several criteria, this one may raise the greatest discussion. The nature of the Development Reserve is that some of the proposed surrounding land uses have not been previously identified. While the north portion of the site is currently guided Light Industrial Park (which does not present a conflict), the remainder of the subject area, and its surrounding property, is not guided with a specific land use designation. Staff notes that in other locations, high-amenity property (particularly those in natural environments) are important opportunities for higher-amenity residential development. The applicant’s request would preclude that option in this area, although it is noted that the preservation of green space and pathway systems could likely still be accomplished. This would be dependent on the details of any development planning in the area. If the City wishes to reserve the opportunity for residential development in the environmentally sensitive areas of the site (in addition to the greenway/pathway elements), it would likely result in a need to shift the southerly boundary of the developable industrial area north by several hundred feet. Because of the nature of the area in question, and the location of the site, other types of land uses over the majority of the subject area would not be likely. Commercial development of the site in question is not practical due to the lack of major transportation and visibility to the area. Moreover, the City has historically worked to concentrate its commercial areas along Highway 25, the downtown, and along I-94. If not designated for industrial, the most feasible alternative land use would be other residential uses – possibly a mix of uses and densities given the size of the site and area. These uses would be consistent with the most probable development patterns in areas to the east and west. However, the borderline between residential and light industrial would still be an issue – just along the existing land use boundary, given the existing Light Industrial Park designation on Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 9 the north 300 acres. So, guiding the south 253 acres for residential would not resolve the potential land use conflict, just relocate the edge. In summary, the primary question is whether the City will consider preservation of the environmental edge along the southerly portion of the subject area for high-amenity residential, reserving a portion of the proposed amendment area for that purpose. As noted, incorporation of public and green space uses is possible with the Light Industrial guidance as proposed. Staff estimates that reserving residential along the south boundary would reduce the industrial area by at least 50 acres of the proposed 300 acre proposal area, possibly more. (g) Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; and Staff Comment: The proposed amendment is logical and orderly. Combined with the currently guided Light Industrial Park land to the north and required extension of utilities and roadway improvements to serve the area, the proposal does not conflict with any of the City’s development objectives. While the site it is not currently within existing city boundaries, it is noted that the acreages necessary to support the proposed land use cannot reasonably fit within the existing incorporated areas of the City – nor would the City likely prefer such a pattern. The development concept requires the evaluation of this land area and development pattern. Because the conceptual use is a large, self- contained campus, it creates a sort of blockage to extension of growth beyond. In this way, placing the use at the edge of the City is the better strategy to avoid the logical and orderly growth required by this criterion. However, it will also be necessary for the City to evaluate the infrastructure development plan for the proposal, ensuring appropriate extension to the project boundary to facilitate future growth. (h) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of this chapter. Staff Comment: As noted above, the amendment can be seen to be consistent with the purpose of “this chapter”, that being the zoning ordinance and the foundational Comprehensive Plan land use goals. The development area is not obstructing other goals or land use patterns and is expected – as a basic condition of any future development approval – to pay its way in terms of public services and improvements. It is further expected to contribute to the City’s tax base diversification, a key goal of the City’s economic development function. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 10 Summary There are two fundamental issues that the City should consider as related to the proposed amendment. These questions are raised not with the expectation that there are current answers, but to acknowledge that they require ongoing attention as a part of the City’s land use planning and future decision-making. First, the City will need to evaluate development proposals within the amendment area for their ability to meet expectations for tax base creation, infrastructure development and financing, and how they avoid the negative land use impacts that can occur from data center uses. Second, if the southerly portion of the site is not reserved for higher amenity residential, the City should review land area supply and locations to accommodate its ongoing objective of finding high-amenity and environmental areas for higher-end residential uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed land use map amendment is one of the most fundamental policy decisions for the City. The Comprehensive Plan identifies several factors for consideration as a part of any proposal to amend the plan, as enumerated in this report. The factors show that the proposed amendment can be supported as it relates to overall city land use goals. This is with the understanding that the proposed amendment will require continued planning and intentional decision-making for any project proposed within the subject area, as well as for future land use development in the City’s other growth areas. The issues which will require additional review, either as a part of development review, or as ongoing planning projects for the City are summarized as follows: 1. Ensuring that the project supports itself financially in the provision of public services, including utilities, roads, and other infrastructure. 2. Ensuring that the project maintains the expected tax base benefit throughout the life of the project. In this way, the project meets a key goal of the City’s economic development planning. 3. Ensuring that the project is developed in a manner that preserves and helps implement the City’s goals in protecting the environmental assets at the south boundary of the subject area, including both greenway and pathway systems. 4. Ensuring that as land is dedicated to technology campus/data center development, other lands are found to support the City’s industrial development objectives. 5. Ensuring that as the environmental assets in this area – often viewed as potential high-end residential opportunities - are consumed for non-residential use, the City is able to actively identify alternative locations to achieve its goals for a full range of housing choice. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 11 6. Ensuring that as the project is developed under the amended land use, compatibility with future adjoining land uses is preserved, and the City maintains flexibility in choosing appropriate land use designations for those nearby area. With these principles in mind, staff believe that the amendment can be found consistent with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements and therefore recommends approval of the proposed land use map amendment. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2025-07 B. Aerial Site Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Proposed Land Use Designation Amendment – Map E. Excerpts, Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan F. Excerpt, Monticello Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2040 MONTICELLO VISION + PLAN (THE “COMPREHENSIVE PLAN”) AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, EXHIBIT 3.3, ALTERING LAND USE GUIDANCE FOR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FROM DR – DEVELOPMENT RESERVE TO LIP, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK WHEREAS, the City regulates land use through its Comprehensive Plan (currently the 2040 Monticello Vision + Plan), relying on the Future Land Use Map (Exhibit 3.3) for guidance as to future land uses and resulting impacts; and WHEREAS, the City utilizes a process for considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan from time to time, as various conditions may warrant such considerations; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan designates various lands for general land use categories, including Light Industrial Park and Development Reserve, among other categories; and WHEREAS, the Development Reserve designation is reserved for further study and consideration, pending the ability of the City to provide adequate municipal services, to the area, among other factors; and WHEREAS, the representatives of approximately 253 acres at the southern edge of the community have requested the property be re-guided from DR, Development Reserve to LIP, Light Industrial Park; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the best interests of the City’s land use goals and objectives, and reasonable flexibility for development planning and timing, would be best served by amending the current Comprehensive Plan to modify land use guidance for the subject property, based on the findings herein, and various limitations and requirements inherent in the City’s exercise of its land use authority; and WHEREAS, the re-guidance of said property to LIP, Light Industrial Park would be consistent with the adjoining land to the north, also currently guided LIP; and CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-07 WHEREAS, the proposed LIP designation would support a variety of light industrial land uses, an important land use objective of the City; and WHEREAS, the City would adopt, or has adopted, various land use management requirements ensuring that development within the LIP areas is undertaken in accordance with the City’s land use and economic development goals; and WHEREAS, with the applicable amendment, the City would establish and retain land use control over projects of this type, ensuring more effective planning, cost-efficient development, and preservation of other City goals and objectives related to industrial and economic development; and WHEREAS, any property located within the area subject to this re-guidance would need to be processed and reviewed according to those standards and to achieve the applicable goals; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the amendments modifying the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan and the effect on the City’s land use plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 4th, 2025 on the proposal and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The City’s land use planning documents direct a balanced approach to development, requiring adherence to high standards of use, but also recognizing the needs of the private development market to efficiently plan for and finance that development. 2. The City’s land use goals for industrial development include an emphasis on tax-base stabilization and diversification, as well as employment creation. 3. The incorporation of the subject area into the LIP land use category has the potential to accomplish tax-base stability and diversity. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-07 4. The incorporation of data center development as allowed by the LIP, and contemplated by the interested parties has the potential to create employment that includes high- wage positions, and periodically, levels of employment that can be a component of the City’s economic development goals, even though total employment may be less concentrated than other industrial uses. 5. Accommodation of data center development within Light Industrial Park designations accelerates the supply of local jobs beyond the historical pace of light industrial land development. 6. By retaining the ability to regulate data center uses per the language in the Light Industrial Park designation, and only to suitable locations, the potential allowance of data center development can accommodate both the City’s economic development interests, as well as its interest in quality land planning. 7. The City retains the ability to consider the following factors in permitting data center development, providing assurances that such development is advancing the City’s land use and economic development interests: a. Proximity to Residential Land Uses: The city will review data center development requests to ensure protection of existing and future residential development areas. b. Noise: The City will review and consider data center development only when concerns related to nuisance noise can be satisfactorily addressed with demonstrated data. c. Utility Demands: The City will require that the developer must demonstrate adequate capacity and design to serve these users, without creating a shortage of capacity for other development. d. Transportation: The City will require that transportation impacts and demands are studied to ensure that road networks are maintained and advanced, and that capacity and/or design improvements are accounted for as a part of such development. e. The City will require that any such developer will study and detail transportation impacts and present a thorough and adequate multi-modal circulation plan, as determined by the City. f. Industrial Land Supply: The City will evaluate, and use as a consideration of approval or denial, whether adequate supplies of land to accommodate other light-industrial development are available if data center development consumes large areas currently guided. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-07 g. The City will examine, and use as a consideration of approval or denial, whether the City’s current Orderly Annexation boundaries and Orderly Annexation Agreement expansion language will not negatively impact other land use and growth considerations as land is consumed by data center uses. h. Economic/Fiscal Issues: The City will utilize various financial tools to ensure that development contracts adequately secure financial obligations and bind future parties to achieve the goals of the projects under consideration. i. Electric Power Usage: Data center coordination with energy service providers and information on their permitting process may be a factor in local approval or denial. The information must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City whether the electric power supply can remain consistent and robust for others in and around the community, without threat of power loss due to the development of data centers in the community. j. The City will evaluate other site-specific considerations through applicable implementation tools, including the zoning and subdivision ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Map, Exhibit 3.3, altering land use guidance from DR– Development Reserve to LIP - Light Industrial Park for the subject site as illustrated on Exhibit A to this resolution be approved, based on the findings noted herein. ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 2025 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-07 ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-07 EXHIBIT A AREA TO BE REGUIDED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK Consideration to Amend Monticello 2040 Comp Plan - Land Use Growth & Orderly Annexation PID: 213100-271300; 262300; 262200; 262400; 271100; 271301; 271302 Legal: Lengthy Address: Multiple Created by: City of Monticello 1,196 ft kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 651-643-0444 DATE: January 6, 2025 TO: Angela Schumann, City of Monticello – Community Development Director FROM: Brian Wurdeman, PE, Kimley-Horn Nick Frattalone, Monticello Tech LLC – Chief Executive Officer SUBJECT: Monticello Light Industrial Comprehensive Plan Amendment Overview On behalf of Monticello Tech LLC, the following information has been included in our Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. We are seeking support from the City of Monticello to re-guide approximately 253 acres of land currently guided Development Reserve to Light Industrial. We believe this application is conforming with the guidelines put forth by the City of Monticello. Thank you for your consideration of the following information. Please let us know if you have any questions or would like additional information to be provided. We look forward to doing business in your community. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria This memorandum assesses the consistency of the proposed amendment from Development Reserve to Light Industrial with the Comprehensive Plan, addressing the following criteria: 1. Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses a need due to changing conditions, trends, or facts arising since the Comprehensive Plan's adoption. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public. 5. The impacts on the natural and built environments, including engineering and environmental factors. 6. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed surrounding uses, and appropriate for the land. 7. Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly, and predictable development pattern. 8. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of this ordinance. Analysis 1. Correction of Errors or Addressing Changing Conditions - The proposed amendment does not aim to correct any errors or emissions of the initial comprehensive plan. It is intended to provide further guidance in Development Reserve Area that was not previously guided or studied as part of the current comprehensive plan. 2. Consistency with Guiding Principles - The guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan establish a framework for sustainable and equitable development. The proposed amendment does not conflict with these principles as the Page 2 kimley-horn.com 11995 Singletree Lane, Suite 225 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 651-643-0444 amended area would be adjacent to land currently guided towards Light Industrial. 3. Addressing Demonstrated Community Need - The market has demonstrated a need for additional land area to be guided towards Light Industrial as there is market interest in Light Industrial users developing the property. 4. Protection of Public Health, Safety, Morals, and General Welfare - The proposed amendment will not inhibit the Public Health, Safety, Morals, and General Welfare of the Community as the proposed re-guided Light Industrial Area would be located immediately adjacent to areas currently guided towards Light Industrial. All developments within the Light Industrial district would then be subject to meeting all requirements related to traffic, noise, air quality, etc. established by the City and State. 5. Impacts on Natural and Built Environments - Environmental analyses indicate that the proposed amendment minimally impacts air, water, and noise levels as there is adjacent land guided towards Light Industrial. All developments within the Light Industrial district would then be subject to meeting all requirements related to environmental regulations of the City and State. 6. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses and Land Suitability - The proposed amendment is compatible with existing and planned uses in the vicinity. The design respects the character and needs of the surrounding properties, ensuring harmonious integration. 7. Logical, Orderly, and Predictable Development Pattern - This amendment contributes to a logical and predictable development pattern by following planned growth trajectories and enhancing infrastructural continuity. It fits within the City's established development framework. 8. Consistency with Ordinance Purpose - The amendment directly supports the purpose of this ordinance by advancing such as urban growth and economic development. It aligns with regulatory intents and enhances the overall implementation of city planning policies. Conclusion In conclusion, the proposed amendment satisfies all the criteria listed, ensuring it is a valuable and necessary adjustment to the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment will address emerging needs, preserve public well-being, and foster a sustainable development pattern in alignment with the City’s long-term vision. If there are any questions or further clarifications needed, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Brian Wurdeman, P.E. Associate Kimley-Horn ED M O N S O N A V E N E 85TH ST NE HIG H W A Y 2 5 EXISTING WETLAND AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA (TO BE PROTECTED) DEVELOPMENT RESERVE TO BE RE-GUIDED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK ±253 AC PROPOSED GREENWAY CORRIDOR (PER 2040 MONTICELLO COMP PLAN) NORTH SHEET NO. DRAWN BY: DATE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT PREPARED FOR: FRATTALONE DEVELOPMENT MOB 12/19/2024 EX-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020 ADOPTION CHAPTER 3: LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 47 LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 50 GROWTH STRATEGY Monticello’s growth strategy balances land use development needs with real estate market demand, and transportation and infrastructure improvement requirements to ensure an orderly and efficient use of land and resources. There is a significant amount of development potential within Monticello’s existing municipal boundary and even greater potential in the surrounding MOAA. Therefore, for the next 20 years, the general growth strategy prioritizes development of remaining available vacant land within existing boundaries and the downtown and surrounding area before substantially developing and annexing land within the MOAA. The growth strategy has three objectives: • Encourage growth which creates a strong and vibrant place to live, work, shop and recreate, with focused infill development and redevelopment to create a vibrant downtown and core community; development which provides a range of housing, employment and economic opportunity; development which provides both a walkable community and safe multi-modal transportation options; and development which sustains and enhances the natural amenities of Monticello. • Support investment and reinvestment within the existing city boundary of Monticello, directing development into areas of Monticello already serviced or planned to be serviced by roads and utilities, while also thoughtfully designing and limiting development within and around sensitive natural areas. • Ensure the managed development of appropriate and compatible land uses which is resilient to shifts and changes in the economy, real estate market and consumer demand, and responds to a changing tax base. Another aspect of the growth strategy is the designation of significant portions of the MOAA as a Development Reserve. This is land reserved for an extended, longer-term growth horizon beyond 2040 and the time horizon of this Comprehensive Plan. However, some development in the MOAA is likely to occur before 2040 and Monticello should adjust its land use policies and decision- making with some measure of flexibility to accommodate new development proposals as they occur. As long as development proposals meet the overarching land use planning goals presented in this Comprehensive Plan, an amendment to the Plan is the proper procedure for consideration of such projects. Consideration for projects in the MOAA and annexation requests will follow the current annexation agreement parameters, or any future amendments to the agreement. Growth and development within the MOAA would naturally follow the existing roadway network and its potential for expansion as well as the availability of utility infrastructure, specifically sewer and water lines provided as City services. Specific projects will require analysis of utility and infrastructure needs, roadway network capacity, as well as land use compatibility. Given the MOAA’s existing land area and its growth potential, its full development build-out would occur over a much longer time period, extending beyond the 20-year timeline of this plan. Land in the Monticello Orderly Annexation AreaBriar Oakes Residential Property, Source: City of Monticello MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 51 PRIMARY GROWTH CITY-WIDE GROWTH AND DOWNTOWN Developing parcels within the City and the Downtown are the primary growth objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Monticello will prioritize infill development within the existing municipal boundary and adjacent lands accessible by existing utility infrastructure, with a strong focus on the revitalization and redevelopment of the Downtown. SECONDARY GROWTH STUDY AREAS AND PORTIONS OF THE MOAA The secondary growth objectives of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan include directing growth into the Northwest Study Area, the East Bertram Study Area, specific parcels of land within the MOAA with a future planned land use designation, and other areas that align with City goals and policies. In particular, property outside the Study Areas but with frontage on County Highway (CSAH) 39, Highway 25 and other major transportation corridors, or properties already served by utilities are logical development opportunities and may be considered Primary Growth Areas. The City shall retain discretion when evaluating development proposals in the Secondary Growth Area that are consistent with the Goals and Vision of the Comprehensive Plan. TERTIARY GROWTH DEVELOPMENT RESERVE OF THE MOAA The third growth objective is to direct growth in the Development Reserve of the MOAA. Property within the MOAA will retain their existing uses until requests for annexation and development under the Orderly Annexation Agreement occurs, and transportation and utility improvements are installed. This includes utility studies to support cost effective and efficient infrastructure into the secondary and tertiary areas. It would be premature to change the land use designations of parcels at the time of this Comprehensive Plan given this Plan’s long-term development horizon, and the potential need for future study and development impact assessment. As appropriate, the City may undertake or authorize development studies to respond to Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals or changing circumstances. Since these areas have a longer development horizon and have not been assigned a new future land use designation, they will continue to accommodate the existing single-family, rural residential and agricultural land uses that exist today. Any future change of land use will require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Sunset Ponds Development Residential Development in the City of Monticello LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 52MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN MONTICELLO, MN GROWTH STRATEGY MAP - EXHIBIT 3.2 DECEMBER 2020 1 inch = 2,250 feet PROJECT TEAM: PREPARED FOR: CITY OF MONTICELLO THE LAKOTA GROUP WSB © 2020 THE LAKOTA GROUP GROWTH STRATEGY MAP EXHIBIT 3.2 North Primary Growth Secondary Growth Tertiary Growth Land - Not Applicable City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Note: The land categorized “Not Applicable” is either: • located outside the Monticello Township boundary • protected as a wetland • designated as Open Space and Resource Conservation or City Parks and Recreation 94 25 131 94 PIN E S T PIN E S T ELM S T ELM S T BRO A D W A Y S T BRO A D W A Y S T CHE L S E A R D CHE L S E A R D JA S O N A V E N E JA S O N A V E N E ED M O N S O N A V E ED M O N S O N A V E FE N N I N G A V E FE N N I N G A V E SCHOOL BLVDSCHOOL BLVD 85TH ST NE85TH ST NE COUNTY RD 39 NECOUNTY RD 39 NE COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE 80TH ST NE80TH ST NE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020 ADOPTION North GROWTH STRATEGY MAP EXHIBIT 3.2 Primary Growth Secondary Growth Tertiary Growth Land - Not Applicable City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Note: The land categorized “Not Applicable” is either: • located outside the Monticello Township boundary • protected as a wetland • designated as Open Space and Resource Conservation or City Parks and Recreation LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 54 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND MAP Achieving Monticello’s planning goals and implementing its growth strategy requires an approach to City-wide land use that finds an appropriate balance between all land uses considering changing market conditions, development opportunities, and resident and stakeholder aspirations for Monticello’s future. A balance between such land uses is needed to protect neighborhoods, to provide recreational opportunities, to offer community gathering places, and to ensure a stable and growing tax base that promotes economic diversity and resiliency to economic changes. The Future Land Use Designations and Map will guide future land use decision- making and can be amended when circumstances or opportunities warrant a change in planning direction in the City. However, any changes to the Future Land Use Map should also be consistent with the larger community vision established through the comprehensive planning process. The Monticello City Council can only approve changes to the Land Use Designations and FLUM through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In total, there are 18 distinct land use designations, including six residential designations, four commercial and mixed-use designations, three industrial designations, two parks and open space designations, one public and institutional designation, one for the Development Reserve of the MOAA, and one for the Xcel MNGP. The land uses designations include: • Development Reserve (DR) • Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) • Parks and Recreation (PR) • Estate Residential (ER) • Low-Density Residential (LDR) • Traditional Residential (TR) • Mixed Neighborhood (MN) • Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) • Manufactured Home (MH) • Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) • Community Commercial (CC) • Regional Commercial (RC) • Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) • Light Industrial Park (LIP) • General Industrial (GI) • Employment Campus (EC) • Public and Institutional (P) • Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) Carlisle Village Residential Property, Source: City of Monticello MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 55MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN MONTICELLO, MN FUTURE LAND USE MAP - EXHIBIT 3.3 DECEMBER 2020 1 inch = 2,250 feet PROJECT TEAM: PREPARED FOR: CITY OF MONTICELLO THE LAKOTA GROUP WSB © 2020 THE LAKOTA GROUP City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 North 94 25 131 94 PIN E S T PIN E S T ELM S T ELM S T BRO A D W A Y S T BRO A D W A Y S T CHE L S E A R D CHE L S E A R D JA S O N A V E N E JA S O N A V E N E ED M O N S O N A V E ED M O N S O N A V E FE N N I N G A V E FE N N I N G A V E SCHOOL BLVDSCHOOL BLVD 85TH ST NE85TH ST NE COUNTY RD 39 NECOUNTY RD 39 NE COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE 80TH ST NE80TH ST NE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 2 3RD , 2020 ADOPTION FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) North LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 56 Low-Density There is ample available land that could be developed for low-density, single- family residential uses and create new neighborhoods. Two land uses, Estate Residential and Low-Density Residential, will guide new single-family residential neighborhoods in the City. By 2040, the Comprehensive Plan envisions low density single-family uses and conservation style development in these areas of the City and contiguous to the MOAA. Generally, an average density of 4 housing units per acre characterizes single-family neighborhoods but these areas could likely be developed between 3-6 units per acre depending on utility infrastructure, sensitive natural resources, conservation style development, developer preferences and project specifics. Other types of single-family housing styles, including small-lot development and attached single-family homes is encouraged in this and other residential land use designations. DEVELOPMENT RESERVE A Development Reserve land use designation applies to a significant portion of the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). The Development Reserve includes 3,100 acres on the Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is to serve as a growth reserve that maintains lands for agricultural, rural residential or other similar permitted uses until such time those lands are developed for other uses. Future uses could include residential, commercial or industrial development. As described previously, the Development Reserve is a long-term tertiary growth objective for the City. Future development and change of use would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS Monticello has approximately 3,484 acres of land currently used for residential purposes. The majority of this land, 3,127 acres or roughly 90%, is developed with single-family homes. The remaining 357 acres accommodates a limited variety of attached single- and multi-family housing types, including townhomes, duplexes, multi-story apartment buildings, and manufactured homes. There are approximately 4,496 acres of land designated for residential use on the Future Land Use Map, including 3,374 acres for single-family homes and 1,122 acres for a variety of mixed and multi-family style housing types. This acreage is projected to accommodate the existing uses and future anticipated housing needs in the City over the next twenty years consistent with the Primary Growth Strategy. This acreage does not include the 49 acres of Downtown Mixed- Use and 174 acres of Commercial/Residential Flex (both described in the following section on commercial land use) which also have potential to contain future residential development. The Future Land Use Plan establishes six different residential designations to achieve a variety of housing and neighborhood character that differ between housing type, scale and form, and density. Three designations allow and encourage a range of new single-family, multi-family and mixed housing types and densities. The purpose of the residential designations is to characterize and preserve neighborhoods, promote a range of housing types and housing stock diversity, continue to provide areas for single-family homes, and encourage the infill development of small-lot single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums, senior housing and mixed or alternative styles of multi-family development. Land Use Categories Acreage Estate Residential 1,102 Low-Density Residential 2,198 Traditional Residential 74 Mixed Neighborhood 635 Mixed-Density Residential 348 Manufactured Home 135 TABLE 3.2: FUTURE LAND USE RESIDENTIAL ACREAGES Eastwood Knoll Residential Property, Source: City of Monticello MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 81 Primary Mode Vehicular with access to collectors and arterials Transit or shuttle service Secondary Mode Shared bike/ pedestrian facilities MOBILITY DEVELOPMENT FORM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK (LIP) The Light Industrial designation accommodates a variety of light industrial uses. Uses are characterized by a higher level of amenities not required in the General Industrial designation. Characteristics such as noise, vibration and odor do not occur or do not generate significant impacts. Hazardous materials handling and storage may also occur but must be stored indoors or screened from the public right-of-way. Activities such as the handling of hazardous materials and outdoor storage are limited. This land use designation does not include the principal retail commercial uses found in the Employment Campus and a more limited range of commercial activities. Transportation impacts which occur are in direct support of the manufacturing or production use. The Light Industrial land use is distinguished from General Industrial land use by reduced potential for noise, visibility, truck activity, storage and other land use impacts. The Light Industrial Designation accommodates uses such as processing, assembly, production, and fabrication manufacturing which uses moderate amounts of partially processed materials, warehousing and distribution, research and development, medical laboratories, machine shops, computer technology, and industrial engineering facilities. Office uses also occur within these areas. This designation also accommodates limited local-serving commercial uses which may generate storage or noise impacts. • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.50 to 0.75 • Height - Up to 4 stories • Lot Area - N/A LOT PATTERN LAND USE MIX Industrial • Warehousing and Distribution • Light Manufacturing • Assembly • Production & Fabrication • Research and Development • Medical Laboratories • Computer Technology Commercial • Minor Auto-Repair • Self Storage VISUAL EXAMPLE 2018 Correlating Zoning DistrictZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District I-1 Light Industrial District IBC Industrial Business Campus (Amended March 2023; Resolution 2023-27) MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 195 IMPLEMENTATION CHART: LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION GOAL POLICY STRATEGY ONGOING THEMESHORT- TERM LONG- TERM Goal 1: Growth and Change Policy 1.2: Growth Management to Achieve Goal Adopt and maintain growth management tools which prioritize development within the existing city boundary first as the primary growth area and then into the Planning Areas and some adjacent MOAA areas as a secondary option and then into Development Reserve of the MOAA as the last option. There may be exceptions to this when utilities and transportation infrastructure is readily available. Strategy 1.2.1 - Create growth management tools and solutions such as development incentives, zoning regulations, capital investments, and other measures which support focused development into the primary growth areas. Strategy 1.2.2 - Consider a more detailed planning initiative for the Northwest and East Bertram Study Areas to better define land use, utility and transportation corridors and needs, which can be incorporated into finance and capital improvement plans. Strategy 1.2.3 - Develop utility and transportation solutions supporting the development of “primary” growth areas which best meet the city’s immediate development goals, such as those for the Chelsea/School Boulevard (CR) area, and estate residential areas. Goal 1: Growth and Change Policy 1.3: Balance Land Use with Transportation Choices Ensure that land use decisions consider the characteristics of the transportation network, including road capacity, the quality of the streetscape, sidewalks, accessibility, availability of public transportation and other modes of travel. Strategy 1.3.1 - Use the development review process to evaluate and mitigate potential impacts on traffic, parking, transportation safety, accessibility, connectivity, and transit needs. Strategy 1.3.2 - Require a preliminary transportation plan, including conceptual roadway network, with any development proposed in the Northwest or East Bertram Planning Areas. Strategy 1.3.3 - Coordinate and participate in regional land use planning activities, particularly along State Highway 25, with Wright County, Sherburne County, the Cities of Buffalo, Big Lake and Becker, the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership and the School District. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 1 2C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Block 52 Planned Unit Development District for landscaping, lighting and screening conditions of the PUD approval. Applicant: Mark Buchholz and City of Monticello Prepared by: Community Development Director Meeting Date: 02/04/25 Council Date (pending Commission action): 02/24/25 Additional Analysis by: City Planner, Chief Building & Zoning Official, Community & Economic Development Coordinator ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of Amendment to Block 52 Planned Unit Development District 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-008 recommending approval of an Ordinance Amending the Block 52 Planned Unit Development District amending landscaping, lighting and screening conditions of the PUD per Exhibit Z of February 4, 2025, contingent on compliance with the balance of the Exhibit Z Conditions as approved on July 11, 2022, and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2025-008 recommending approval of an Ordinance Amending the Block 52 Planned Unit Development District for landscaping, lighting and screening conditions of the PUD approval, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2025-008. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Block 52 First Addition PID #: 155275001020 and 155275001010 Planning Case Number: 2024-48 Request(s): Amendment to the Block 52 Planned Unit Development District Deadline for Decision: March 4, 2025 (60-day deadline) May 3, 2025 (120-day deadline) Land Use Designation: Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Zoning Designation: Block 52 Planned Unit Development District Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 2 Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: None Current Site Uses: Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential, Municipal Parking Surrounding Land Uses: North: Bridge Park East: Retail South: Retail, Personal Service, Office West: Retail Project Description: The applicants are seeking an amendment to the Block 52 Planned Unit Development District to address conditions of approval in the original PUD relating to site lighting and screening, as well as landscaping for both the City and privately-owned parcels within the PUD. ANALYSIS: Monticello Zoning Ordinance §153.028 requires an amendment to planned unit development when a modification to the approved conditions of the PUD is requested. The Block 52 Planned Unit Development conditions were approved as part of Resolution 2022-78 (Final Plat) and 2022-79 (Final Stage PUD). Amendments are sought for both Lot 1, Block 1 of the Block 52 First Addition, which is privately owned by the original developer, Buchholz Properties (and partners), and Lot 2, Block 1 of the Block 52 First Addition, which is owned by the City of Monticello. With the exception of the requested amendments as described below, the other conditions of approval have been met or are on-going PUD requirements. Summary of Amendments Screening & Lighting The property owner/developer of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Block 52 PUD (Buchholz) is requesting to eliminate the condition requirement for screening of on-site mechanical/utility equipment and flexibility from the maximum illumination levels required by code. The applicable PUD conditions and analysis follow. 13. The project site and building elements shall be subject to the following requirements: Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 3 c. Where exterior wall-mounted utility meters are utilized, they be shall screened from view with materials complementary to the building design. i. Add downcast lighting under canopies and overhang, or other locations that feature the building and deemphasize the light source. Comments: The requirement for screening of utility meters was intended to shield large banks of utility meters for individual residential and commercial tenant units. At the time of the final stage PUD, the final design of utility metering was not set. When completed, the Block 52 building did not include an individual metering design resulting in large panels of utility meters. Rather, the utility metering is consolidated on the building’s west side and is limited in extent. The utility meters are minor in appearance relative to the scale of the building. Further, the metering station location is directly adjacent to the sidewalk. Any screening in this location would create potential obstruction of the sidewalk. As such, staff would recommend the amendment striking the screening requirement. Regarding the site lighting condition, no exterior lighting plans or specifications were included with the Final Stage PUD approval. As such, the developer is required to comply with the base lighting ordinance, as well as the applicable lighting conditions noted above. The building developer opted to place lighting features emphasizing the building along the first-floor facades. These fixtures illuminate the building both upward and downward. The light source itself is not visible. The placement of the fixtures is consistent with the PUD condition. However, by ordinance the maximum illumination level at the property line is 1.0 footcandle. The developer’s photometric detailing final illumination levels illustrates a footcandle reading of up to 3.7 along the Broadway (south side) of the building and 3.2 in one location along Pine Street (east side). Staff would recommend PUD flexibility from the code in recognition of the developer’s intent to provide lighting which features the building as well as the safety benefit of additional lighting along the sidewalks surrounding the building. The purpose of the code standard is to avoid glare of lighting from intense projects from negatively impacting residents and residential units. The design of this project avoids this impact, with the benefits of public lighting as noted. The code also requires a maximum .5 footcandle reading at all right of way centerlines. The photometric appears to be fully compliant with the centerline requirement. The parking lot lighting footcandles also exceed the property line maximums; these are exempt from the code requirement given the municipal ownership and public use of the parking lot. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 4 The developer’s narrative also proposes a parking lot light standard amendment. This amendment is not necessary as the developer has specified and ordered a fixture similar in style to those the City has installed with its public improvement project, as required. Landscaping The developer and City are also requesting an amendment to approve the site landscaping for both the City-owned parking area and the developer-owned site. The requested amendments and comment are below. 5. A revised site plan detailing the reconfiguration of the public parking lot on Lot 1, Block 1 is required. The modified site plan will retain an area of green space along the north wall of the existing building adjacent to the public parking lot, as well as bollards or curb stops along the east wall of the same building. All corresponding plans will require revision following finalization of the parking plan. Comments: The developer is seeking an amendment to the green space requirement along the north wall of the existing building (106 Walnut Street). As the City developed the final plans and specifications for the Walnut and River Street areas as part of the 2022 Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project, it was necessary to coordinate between the public improvement areas and the parking lot constructed by the developer on Lot 2. Although the City owns the Lot 2 parking lot, the developer completed construction of the lot as part of its private project. The drainage design necessary for the finished parking lot would not accommodate the retention of green space at this location. Further, both City and developer sought to retain the maximum number of parking stalls proposed with the PUD, which required a curbed design in this area. The full curb design at the property edge, rather than bollards or curb stops, is in place. The curbed design also created space for a sidewalk along the north and east sides of the existing Walnut Street building, which accommodates pedestrian travel to the Walnut Street terrace area. Thus, the modified design benefits both parking and pedestrian movements, albeit at the expense of a portion of the green space. That said, there are numerous green space and other public improvements in the as-built design that offset this small area. 13. The project site and building elements shall be subject to the following requirements: j. Raised planters shall be used for shrubs and perennials which are located at the corner at Broadway and Pine Street. n. Freestanding planters shall be integrated in exterior hardscape areas. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 5 Comments: The developer is seeking to eliminate the requirement to install both the raised and freestanding planters in the project area. The developer’s supplied narrative notes that following consultation with MnDOT, raised planters along Broadway and TH25 will not be allowed in the areas originally intended, as those areas are located within or too close to the right of ways. Staff concur that raised planters in this area would also present concerns with accessible routing along the sidewalk. However, staff believe that the introduction of freestanding planters at the front building entrance at corner of Broadway and Pine could still be accommodated. Free standing planters would add color and greenscape to the area throughout the seasons. 17. Additional landscaping recommendations are as follows: a. Change the Broadway Street trees to Honey locust, matching the theme planting currently in place throughout the downtown area. The City would require planting wells and/or pervious tree boxes to avoid root growth interference with the sidewalk paving. b. Remove the eastern-most proposed overstory trees along River Street to avoid screening the views of the park and river from the restaurant and lower-level residential units. c. Add more shrub plantings throughout the project, supplementing (or replacing) the current perennial plantings to develop a more robust year- round planting palette. These may include additional evergreen shrubs and/or deciduous shrubs with winter features (color/fruit, etc.). This includes an enhanced planting plan for the green space/side yard adjacent to the westerly portion of the building and along the parking lot edges, boulevards and internal site green spaces. d. Specify alternative pavements in the pedestrian areas to avoid flat grey concrete and/or asphalt surface. This should include a pedestrian path to each of the streets through the parking areas reinforcing the building sidewalks to those street connections. Comments: The developer is requesting that the City accept the revised landscaping plan for their project area as presented. At the time the PUD conditions were prepared, the 2022 Downtown Street and Pedestrian public improvement plans were not complete. The plans included extensive streetscape landscaping directly adjacent and complimentary to the Block 52 area/ Following completion of the public improvement plans, the developer submitted a revised landscaping plan using the final site plan and City’s landscaping and species list Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 6 as its base. The revised landscaping plan includes tree, shrub and plant species consistent with the City’s plans. Staff authorized the developer to proceed with the planting per the plan revised earlier in 2024 in order for the developer to receive their full certificate of occupancy. Specific to conditions 17 a. and b., the City installed the boulevard trees. This condition is therefore not applicable. The City also completed the sideyard improvements and landscaping referenced in 17 c. The condition is no longer applicable. The developer has included dark grey concrete in select areas consistent with the City’s selected concrete color palette for the Downtown Street & Pedestrian Improvements, consistent with condition 17 d. In regard to the revised landscaping plan itself, the supplied plan is both consistent with the quantities required by the base ordinance, as well as the final Downtown planting plan design, which is an enhancement to the Block 52 PUD overall. The City’s landscaping code requires 10.0 ACI of canopy trees (including at least 1 evergreen tree) per acre + at least 2 shrubs per each 10 feet of building perimeter. The site is 1.47 acres and the building perimeter totals approximately 1050’. The required tree count is 14.7 ACI and shrub count is 210 shrubs. The developer’s revised landscaping plan illustrates approximately 142 shrubs, supplemented by a mix of almost 70 perennial grasses. The plan includes 8 trees of species and size consistent with the requirements and streetscape design plans. Consistent with the public improvement planting plans, no evergreens are included. Other changes involved extensive cooperative work with the City, including a variety of public processes, and are consistent with the direction and/or requirements of those discussions. The developer is still encouraged to install decorative concrete planters along the patio and front entry to enhance the landscaping during winter months as noted above. On- going maintenance of the landscaping per plan is also required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the PUD, with exception of the installation of planters at the building entrance. The recommendation is based on finding the developer has met the design intent of the Block 52 PUD, and in fact has made enhancements to the site not required by the original PUD. These enhancements include the installation of brick on the retaining wall running along the north and east sides of the site. The original requirement was stamped concrete. The PUD plan revisions were also necessary and consistent with the 2022 Downtown Street and Pedestrian Improvements plans. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 7 SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2025-008 B. Ordinance No. XXX C. Aerial Site Image D. Applicant Narrative E. Original Conditions of Approval, Resolutions 2022-78 and 2022-79 F. Revised PUD Plans, Including: a. Final Site Plan b. Landscaping Plan c. Landscaping Plan Notes d. Lighting Photometric e. Lighting Specifications G. Original PUD Plans, including: a. Final Stage PUD Site Plan b. Final Stage PUD Landscaping Plan H. Site Images Z. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 8 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Block 52 Planned Unit Development District Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Block 52 First Addition 1. Continued compliance with Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval dated July 11, 2022 as adopted in Resolutions 2022-79 and Resolution 2022-80, except as noted below: 5. A revised site plan detailing the reconfiguration of the public parking lot on Lot 1, Block 1 is required. The modified site plan will retain an area of green space along the north wall of the existing building adjacent to the public parking lot, as well as bollards or curb stops along the east wall of the same building. All corresponding plans will require revision following finalization of the parking plan. 13. The project site and building elements shall be subject to the following requirements: a. Where exterior wall-mounted utility meters are utilized, they be shall screened from view with materials complementary to the building design. b. Add downcast lighting under canopies and overhang, or other locations that feature the building and deemphasize the light source. 17. Additional Llandscaping per the plans dated February 4, 2025 shall be installed and maintained within the PUD. recommendations are as follows: a. Change the Broadway Street trees to Honey locust, matching the theme planting currently in place throughout the downtown area. The City would require planting wells and/or pervious tree boxes to avoid root growth interference with the sidewalk paving. b. Remove the eastern-most proposed overstory trees along River Street to avoid screening the views of the park and river from the restaurant and lower-level residential units. c. Add more shrub plantings throughout the project, supplementing (or replacing) the current perennial plantings to Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 9 develop a more robust year-round planting palette. These may include additional evergreen shrubs and/or deciduous shrubs with winter features (color/fruit, etc.). This includes an enhanced planting plan for the green space/side yard adjacent to the westerly portion of the building and along the parking lot edges, boulevards and internal site green spaces. d. Specify alternative pavements in the pedestrian areas to avoid flat grey concrete and/or asphalt surface. This should include a pedestrian path to each of the streets through the parking areas reinforcing the building sidewalks to those street connections. 2. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE BLOCK 52 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking amendments to the approved PUD conditions for the Block 52 Planned Unit Development District to reflect changes resulting from site and improvement conditions within and adjacent to the PUD; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the PUD would consist of striking approved PUD conditions related to required utility meter screening and site landscaping, as well as flexibility from code requirements for site lighting; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the City’s PUD zoning ordinance is required to incorporate the changes to the approved conditions and revised plans into the Block 52 PUD District; and WHEREAS, the subject development will remain consistent with requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements under the appropriate PUD standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the Amendment to the Block 52 PUD District pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 4, 2025 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution, and make the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed amendments to the PUD are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Block 52 PUD, Planned Unit Development District. 2. The impacts of amendments are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-08 3. The proposed PUD amendments do not impact existing public and private improvements, including streets, utilities, and stormwater controls that ensure the project will continue to be consistent with the City’s long-term public service infrastructure. 4. The proposed PUD amendments accommodate reasonable flexibility and account for other enhancements with the PUD area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota recommends to the City Council that the proposed amendment to the Block 52 PUD District be approved, subject to continued compliance with the conditions of Exhibit Z of July 11, 2022, except as amended for conditions 5, 13 c, I and j, and 17a-d. ADOPTED this 4th day of February 2025 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. 8XX 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV, § 153.047 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE BLOCK 52 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section § 153.047, PUD Districts, is hereby amended to read as follows: (R) Block 52 PUD District (A) Purpose. The purpose of the PUD, Block 52 Planned Unit Development District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the District for mixed land uses consistent with the direction of the Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the specific uses and improvements identified in the Final PUD Plans dated July 11, 2022, and the PUD amendments to approved Exhibit Z Conditions 5, 13 c, i,and j and 17 a-e as per Amended PUD plans approved February 24, 2025, and as may be properly amended. (B) Permitted Uses. Permitted principal commercial uses in the proposed mixed-use building shall be limited to permitted and conditional uses allowed within the CCD, Central Community District. Additionally ground floor commercial uses along Broadway shall accommodate office uses on the street level, an element of flexibility from the Downtown Small Area Plan. Residential uses shall be permitted uses on the upper floors (non-street-level), per Final PUD plans for the Block 52 PUD District. (C) The introduction of any other use from any district shall be reviewed under the requirements of the PUD requirements and process. (D) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses shall be those specifically identified by the approved Final Stage plans for each approved project. (E) District Performance Standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Block 52 PUD District shall adhere to the approved Final Stage plans and development agreement. In such ORDINANCE NO. 8XX 2 case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the Final Stage PUD plans, such improvement shall only be considered with an amendment to the Final Stage plans per the process specified in the Ordinance. (F) Amendments. Where changes to any proposed project in the PCD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the approved Final Stage PUD plan under the terms of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. The City may require that changes in overall use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. (G) Variations from Plans. The Community Development Department shall determine whether any proposed variation from the approved Final PUD plans shall constitute a PUD Adjustment or PUD Amendment. The Community Development Department shall make this determination narrowly, favoring a full Amendment process in the case of uncertainty. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title XV, Zoning Ordinance, and to renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this ____ day of _________, 2025. __________________________________ Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor ATTEST: ORDINANCE NO. 8XX 3 ___________________________________ Rachael Leonard, City Administrator AYES: NAYS: Consideration to Amend Block 52 PUD - Landscaping, Lighting, & Screening PID: 155275001020, 155275001010; Address: 101 W Broadway; Legal Lenthy Created by: City of Monticello 121 ft 11/13/2024 Ms. Angela Schuman Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Ms. Schumann, Upon reviewing our project, Block 52, we have come up with the following Amendment requests to the CUP. 1) Landscaping plan (as approved previously by staff for installation) a. We do not intend to add raised planters to the site, this is for a few reason, notably, there has been change to the plans that were originally agreed to upon the City redoing their street scape this last year and there is limited space for raised planters. Furthermore, upon consulting with MNDOT they will not allow raised planters in the ROW of State Highway 25. There also lacks sufficient irrigation to maintain that plantings that will ultimately die off prematurely as such a result. 2) Building lighting (installed wall lighting exceeding City’s footcandle ordinance requirements) a. The lights that were installed do slightly cast light outside of the property line along Wright County road 75. We did our best to design this to minimize the affect on to the right of way, however with a zero lot line on that side of the building it proved to be impossible to achieve this and maintain adequate lighting for safety of our residents. We believe that the lights that were installed do attempt to minimize the encroachment while still providing sufficient safety, and as a bonus are aesthetically pleasing. 3) Parking lot light poles standards (if not a match to City standard) a. An alternate design has been submitted to the city staff and has been approved. We are currently working on getting the Photometrics for these particular lights and poles to submit to the city for approval prior to ordering the fixtures. 4) Screening of exterior utility meters a. In discussions with city staff it has been mutually agreed upon that the necessary meters that are on the interior parking lot side of the building do not prove to be the eye sore that was potentially worried about. It does not lend itself to the necessity of being screened as f it would have been had it been 90 individual gas or electric meters. We took extensive measures during the design phase to minimize the visual impact that the needed infrastructure would have on aesthetics. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions, comments or concerns. Mark Buchholz Managing Partner Block 52 Holdings LLC mdbuchholz@gmail.com 701-371-1646 C. S . A . H . N o . 7 5 W a l n u t S t . S t a t e H w y . N o . 2 5 Ri v e r S t . W . CS1 OF 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 22015 MO N T I C E L L O , M N I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , s p e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I a m a d u l y l i c e n s e d En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e s t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a Li c e n s e N o . : 4 3 1 2 9 RE V I S I O N S NO . 1 2 3 4 DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Br i a n J . S c h u l t z , P E SITE PLAN SC H U L T Z E N G I N E E R I N G & S I T E D E S I G N 18 S o u t h R i v e r s i d e A v e n u e Su i t e 2 3 0 Ph : ( 3 2 0 ) 3 3 9 - 0 6 6 9 Fx : ( 8 6 6 ) 6 3 3 - 1 8 3 0 sc h u l t z e n g @ l i v e . c o m Sa r t e l l , M N 5 6 3 7 7 ww w . s c h u l t z e n g d e s i g n . c o m BU C H H O L Z P R O P E R T I E S , L L C SCALE: 1"=30' 0 30 60 120 MO N T I C E L L O B L O C K 5 2 PI N E S T R E E T & R I V E R S T R E E T W E S T AP A R T M E N T S PROPOSED BUILDING MFE = 929.00 GFE = 918.67 20'- 0 " 9'- 0 " (T Y P ) (TY P ) 8'- 8 " 8'- 8 " 8'- 8 " 8'- 8 " 8'- 8 " 8'- 8 " 20 ' - 0 " 9'-0 " (TY P ) (T Y P ) 18 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 9'- 0 " (T Y P ) (TY P ) 26' - 0 " (T Y P ) (TY P ) (TY P ) (T Y P ) 10 14 12 5 28 13 PARKING CALCULATION ON-SITE PARKING = 110 SPACES 19 ' - 0 " 9'-6 " 19 ' - 0 " 9'-6 " (T Y P ) 19 ' - 0 " 9'-6 " (TY P ) (TY P ) (T Y P ) 14 R:12'-0" BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR APRON CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) 8'-3 " NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS PER CITY & MNDOT STANDARDS (TYP) NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS PER CITY & MNDOT STANDARDS (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE APRON 13' - 0 " 6'-0 " TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEE ARCH.) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) 6'- 0 " TRANSITION FROM B612 TO D412 CURB & GUTTER MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP) (5) CONCRETE STEPS SURFACING NOTES: 2. GRAVEL BASE COURSES SHALL BE ROLLED AND COMPACTED. TEST ROLLING OF THE GRAVEL BASE SHALL BE OBSERVED BY A SOILS ENGINEER TO VERIFY STABILITY. 3. ALL EXISTING BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE EDGES, WHICH WILL ABUT NEW BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE SURFACING SHALL BE SAWCUT TO OBTAIN A VERTICAL EDGE. 1. SUBGRADES SHALL BE SCARIFIED AND/OR COMPACTED AS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE REQUIRED COMPACTION DESCRIBED IN THE GENERAL NOTES (SHEET C1). TEST ROLLING OF THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE OBSERVED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN. LOCATIONS EXHIBITING EXCESSIVE RUTTING (PER MNDOT SPEC. 2111) SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF AGGREGATE BASE. COMPACTION TESTING IN UTILITY TRENCHES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY AN INDEPENDENT TESTING FIRM. 6. SEE SHEET C1 FOR SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS, AND CURB AND GUTTER. 4. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE NEW CONCRETE ABUTS EXISTING CONCRETE, AND AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE SEPARATE CONCRETE POURS ABUT EACH OTHER. 5. CONCRETE PAVEMENT OR APRONS, WHICH ABUT DOORWAY OPENINGS SHALL BE TIED TO THE FLOOR SLAB WITH #4 BARS ALONG THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE DOORWAY. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C3. ADA RAMPS W/ LANDING (TYP)HANDICAP SIGNAGE (TYP) HANDICAP SIGNAGE 1.PROVIDE HANDICAP SPACE SIGNAGE AS PER MN STATUTE 169.346 ($200.00 FINE) AND MN MUTCD 2.PROVIDE "NO PARKING" SIGNAGE AT THE HEAD OF HANDICAP ACCESS AISLES, NO MORE THAN 8-FT FROM THE HEAD OF THE AISLES HANDICAP SIGNAGE (TYP) HANDICAP SIGNAGE (TYP) ADA RAMPS W/ LANDING (TYP) 1 NTS 2 NTS CIVIL SHEET INDEX CS1............................................................................................................................................SITE PLAN C1...............................................................................................STANDARD NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS C2 - C3.....................................................................................................................STANDARD DETAILS C4......................................................................................................DEMOLITION & REMOVALS PLAN C5..................................................................................................................................GRADING PLAN C6................................................................................................................SWPPP - STANDARD NOTES C7..............................................................................................................SWPPP - STANDARD DETAILS C8............................................................................................................................SWPPP - PLAN VIEW C9........................................................................................................................................UTILITY PLAN MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT (TYP) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT STREET PATCH AS PER CITY STANDARDS (TEMPORARY, UNTIL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT STARTS) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT STREET PATCH NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY STATE AND COUNTY PERMITTING FOR WORK COMPLETED WITHIN STATE AND/OR COUNTY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 6'- 5 " 3-1 1 " 3'- 9 " 6'- 3 " 20'- 0 " 9'- 0 " 20' - 0 " 9'- 0 " (TY P ) (T Y P ) 8'- 3 " 20 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 9'- 0 " (T Y P ) (TY P ) 24 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 9'-0 " (TY P ) (T Y P ) 14 24 ' - 0 " 26'- 0 " TRANSFORMER PAD (BY OTHERS) 5'-0 " 8'-0 " 6'-0 " (2) CONCRETE STEPS NOTE: PROPERTY 309.7-FT FROM MISSISSIPPI RIVER OHW (FROM PRELIMINARY PLAT) NOTE: PROPERTY 316.2-FT FROM MISSISSIPPI RIVER EDGE OF WATER ON 03/16/22 (FROM PRELIMINARY PLAT) STOP SIGN (MMUTCD R1-1) MATCH EXISTING TRENCH DRAIN ON ADJACENT PROPERTY (FIELD VERIFY) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) 23 ' - 8 " 15 ' - 6 " 8'- 3 " EXISTING CONC. PAVEMENT TO REMAIN (TYP) MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT (TYP) RETAINING WALL #1 LENGTH = 94 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 10'-4" RETAINING WALL #2 LENGTH = 59 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 10'-4" RETAINING WALL #3 LENGTH = 109 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 3'-11" RETAINING WALL #4 LENGTH = 93 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 2'-9" RETAINING WALL #5 LENGTH = 244 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 2'-9" 6'- 0 " 9' - 8 " 7 ' - 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 10' - 4 " 6'- 0 " 6'-0 " 10' - 3 " 10'- 1 " 10'- 0 " 10' - 1 " 10'- 1 " 10' - 1 " 1 0 ' - 3 " 7'- 3 " 9'- 8 " 19 ' - 7 " 19 ' - 5 " 14 ' - 0 " 7'- 0 " 7'- 0 " 22 ' - 4 " CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) (9) CONCRETE STEPS BOULDERS (TYP) (COORDINATE W/ CITY) 10 ' - 9 " 5'- 4 " 5'- 3 " 6'-0 " 6'- 0 " SIDEWALK CROSS-DRAIN FLOWLINE W = 929.10 FLOWLINE E = 929.00 (SEE 7/C3) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) 26'- 0 " 26'- 0 " CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) TRANSITION FROM B612 TO D412 CURB & GUTTER 12' - 4 " D412 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) 24 ' - 0 " 25' - 9 " 22 ' - 0 " END CURB & GUTTER END CURB & GUTTER W/ 2-FT TAPER MATCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (TYP) MATCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (TYP) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO MATCH BUILDING (TYP) MATCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (TYP) BOULDERS (TYP) (COORDINATE W/ CITY) BOULDERS (TYP) (COORDINATE W/ CITY) BOULDERS (TYP) (COORDINATE W/ CITY) NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE BLOCK 52 SITE CONSTRUCTION WITH ADJACENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, AND VERIFY ANY CHANGES IN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DESIGN DURING CONSTRUCTION, WHICH MAY AFFECT THE BLOCK 52 PROJECT. NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE BLOCK 52 SITE CONSTRUCTION WITH ADJACENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, AND VERIFY ANY CHANGES IN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DESIGN DURING CONSTRUCTION, WHICH MAY AFFECT THE BLOCK 52 PROJECT. MATCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (TYP) MATCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (TYP) Da t e : 0 6 / 2 7 / 2 0 2 3 CO N S T R U C T I O N S E T 2-FT RIBBON CURB (TYP) 2-FT RIBBON CURB (TYP) NOTE: SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR DESIGN, DETAILS, AND SPACIFICATIONS OF PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS AND/OR ASSOCIATED RAILINGS. 08 / 0 9 / 2 0 2 3 PE R C I T Y E N G I N E E R C O M M E N T S Fi l e n a m e : C : \ U s e r s \ b a i l e y \ R o u z e r G r o u p \ R o u z e r I n s i d e - R o u z e r I n s i d e D o c u m e n t s \ R A B \ R o u z e r L a y o u t s \ B a i l ey s A G I \ G a n s k e - A G I \ B l o c k 5 2 n e w . A G I Ba i l e y G a n s k e Sc a l e : a s n o t e d Fi l e n a m e : B l o c k 5 2 n e w . A G I Da t e : 4 / 5 / 2 0 2 4 The Lighting Analysis, ezLayout, Energy Analysis and/or Visual Simulation ("Lighting Design) provided by ROUZER ("ROUZER")represents an anticipated prediction of lighting system performance based upon design parameters and information supplied by others. These design parameters and information provided by others have not been field verified by ROUZER and therefore actual measured results may vary from the actual field conditions. ROUZER recommends that design parameters and other information be field verified to reduce variation. ROUZER neither warranties, either implied or stated with regard to actual measured light levels or energy consumption levels as compared to those illustrated by the Lighting Design. ROUZER neither warranties, either implied or stated, nor represents the appropriateness, completeness or suitability of the Lighting Design intent as compliant with any applicable regulatory code requirements with the exception of those specifically stated on drawings created and submitted by ROUZER. The Lighting design is issued, in whole or in part, as advisory documents for informational purposes and is not intendedfor construction nor as being part of a project's construction documentation package. Dr a w n B y : Pr e p a r e d F o r : b W I N L E C T R I C J o b N a m e : B L O C K 5 2 Li g h t i n g L a y o u t Ve r s i o n A Scale: 1 inch= 22.73 Ft. 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A A 5 6 A 7 A C4 8 C4 9 C4 10 C4 11 12 C4 C4 13 14 C4 15 C4 C4 16 C4 17 C4 18 19 C4 C4 20 C4 21 C4 22 C4 23 C4 24 C4 25 C4 26 27 C4 C4 28 29 C6 C6 30 C6 31 C6 32 C6 33 34 C6 35 C6 C6 36 C6 37 WW 38 39 WW WW 40 WW 41 42 WW WW 43 WW 44 WW 45 WW 46 WW 47 WW 48 49 WW 50 WW WW 51 WW 52 WW 53 WW 54 WW 55 WW 56 57 WW WW 58 WW 59 WW 60 WW 61 WW 62 WW 6364 WW 65 WWWW 66 67 WW 68 WW69 WW 70 WW 71 WW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.8 3.3 0.0 3.3 8.6 4.5 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.8 3.2 59.2 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.1 2.7 0.0 4.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 2.5 3.7 16.3 30.9 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 5.1 4.5 5.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 4.0 5.0 5.2 3.9 3.4 4.4 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.1 15.7 13.9 8.5 5.6 4.6 4.0 3.8 5.0 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 20.5 10.5 13.3 12.5 9.1 6.3 4.7 4.0 4.2 5.0 14.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 4.1 6.2 6.2 7.6 9.6 9.1 7.5 5.4 4.2 4.0 4.7 6.5 9.6 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.8 3.8 4.5 5.7 6.4 5.7 4.8 3.7 3.2 3.6 5.1 7.8 11.2 27.6 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.3 2.7 2.2 2.2 3.0 4.8 7.8 11.8 15.0 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.6 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.3 2.2 3.9 6.5 10.1 12.4 29.7 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.7 2.9 3.8 3.9 3.3 2.4 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.7 3.0 5.1 7.6 8.7 7.8 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 3.5 5.2 5.6 4.4 2.9 1.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.2 2.2 3.6 5.2 6.3 6.9 12.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 2.0 4.2 7.4 8.0 5.9 3.8 2.4 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.8 2.9 3.9 4.7 5.5 6.4 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 2.2 5.0 9.3 10.1 7.3 4.9 3.3 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.2 3.1 3.7 4.0 4.4 4.9 7.5 3.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 2.1 4.5 8.3 9.9 7.9 5.7 4.3 3.2 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.6 3.3 4.2 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.5 5.9 20.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.5 2.9 4.9 6.3 6.5 5.8 5.1 4.3 3.4 3.0 3.4 4.3 5.3 6.3 6.0 4.6 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.6 2.6 3.7 4.9 5.8 6.3 5.8 4.7 4.2 4.8 6.4 8.2 9.1 7.4 4.6 2.9 2.4 2.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.8 4.6 6.9 8.6 7.8 6.0 5.1 5.6 7.4 10.1 10.6 7.4 4.0 2.4 1.9 2.4 6.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.3 2.6 5.3 9.3 11.3 9.2 6.6 5.2 4.9 5.7 7.4 7.7 5.6 3.3 2.1 1.6 1.7 2.4 13.7 4.8 2.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 2.4 5.3 9.8 11.4 8.7 6.1 4.5 3.8 3.9 4.6 5.0 4.1 2.9 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.5 3.6 24.9 21.4 3.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.8 3.8 6.9 8.7 7.5 5.4 4.0 3.5 3.6 4.2 4.6 4.0 2.9 2.1 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.3 2.4 4.2 5.8 5.6 4.6 4.0 4.1 4.7 5.6 6.0 4.9 3.3 2.1 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.7 2.8 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.1 5.2 6.9 8.2 8.3 5.8 3.2 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.1 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.2 5.8 8.3 10.5 9.5 5.4 2.6 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 4.7 6.4 7.8 6.8 3.9 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.8 3.5 2.2 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.3 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.4 3.5 4.9 5.8 5.5 5.0 4.0 2.9 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.8 2.7 4.3 6.7 8.8 8.5 7.0 4.8 3.1 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.1 3.6 6.4 9.9 10.2 7.2 4.3 2.7 1.8 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.2 4.0 6.3 6.6 4.6 2.7 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.0 2.9 3.0 2.2 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fi l e n a m e : C : \ U s e r s \ b a i l e y \ R o u z e r G r o u p \ R o u z e r I n s i d e - R o u z e r I n s i d e D o c u m e n t s \ R A B \ R o u z e r L a y o u t s \ B a i l ey s A G I \ G a n s k e - A G I \ B l o c k 5 2 n e w . A G I Sc a l e : a s n o t e d Fi l e n a m e : B l o c k 5 2 n e w . A G I Da t e : 4 / 5 / 2 0 2 4 NOTES: * The light loss factor (LLF) is a product of many variables, only lamp lumen depreciation (LLD) has been applied to the calculated results unless otherwise noted. The LLD is the result (quotient) of mean lumens / initial lumens per lamp manufacturers' specifications. * Illumination values shown (in footcandles) are the predicted results for planes of calculation either to the plane of calculation. * The calculated results of this lighting simulation represent an anticipated prediction of system performance. Actual measured results may vary from the anticipated performance and are subject to means and methods which are beyond the control of the designer. * Mounting height determination is job site specific, our lighting simulations assume a mounting height (insertion point of the luminaire symbol) to be taken at the top of the symbol for ceiling mounted luminaires and at the bottom of the symbol for all other luminaire mounting configurations. * RAB Lighting Inc. luminaire and product designs are protected under U.S. and International intellectual property laws. horizontal, vertical or inclined as designated in the calculation summary. Meter orientation is normal Patents issued or pending apply. The Lighting Analysis, ezLayout, Energy Analysis and/or Visual Simulation ("Lighting Design) provided by ROUZER ("ROUZER")represents an anticipated prediction of lighting system performance based upon design parameters and information supplied by others. These design parameters and information provided by others have not been field verified by ROUZER and therefore actual measured results may vary from the actual field conditions. ROUZER recommends that design parameters and other information be field verified to reduce variation. ROUZER neither warranties, either implied or stated with regard to actual measured light levels or energy consumption levels as compared to those illustrated by the Lighting Design. ROUZER neither warranties, either implied or stated, nor represents the appropriateness, completeness or suitability of the Lighting Design intent as compliant with any applicable regulatory code requirements with the exception of those specifically stated on drawings created and submitted by ROUZER. The Lighting design is issued, in whole or in part, as advisory documents for informational purposes and is not intendedfor construction nor as being part of a project's construction documentation package. Dr a w n B y : Ba i l e y G a n s k e Pr e p a r e d F o r : b W I N L E C T R I C J o b N a m e : B L O C K 5 2 Li g h t i n g L a y o u t Ve r s i o n A ***LAYOUT AND BOM ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL*** Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Tag Label Arrangement Lum. Lumens Calculation Summary Arr. Lum. Lumens LLF Description Lum. Watts Arr. Watts Total Watts Label CalcType Units Avg Max Filename Min Avg/Min Max/Min Description PtSpcLr PtSpcTb Meter Type Ex p a n d e d L u m i n a i r e L o c a t i o n S u m m a r y Lu m N o Ta g X Y MT G H T Or i e n t 1 A 22 3 . 1 2 9 40 0 . 0 3 9 25 27 6 . 9 5 4 2 A 31 3 . 2 9 2 34 1 . 2 9 2 25 24 6 . 0 3 6 3 A 23 8 . 7 1 2 29 3 . 6 1 5 25 4. 6 6 8 4 A 31 7 . 1 2 7 28 0 . 0 2 4 CalcPts_1 Illuminance 21 C4 CDL4W-40W50D940 SINGLE 3620 3620 1.000 CDL4W-40W50D940 35 35 735 rab04579mod904040.ies 9 C6 CDL6W-40W50D940 SINGLE 3363 3363 1.000 CDL6W-40W50D940 34.6 34.6 311.4 rab04593mod904040.ies 34 WW CDLED2W-20W-WWD940SINGLE 1235 1235 1.000 CDLED2W-20W-WWD940 21.1 21.1 717.4 rab04554mod94020.ies 7 A A22 @200W5000K SINGLE 25995 25995 1.000 A22 @200W5000K 200.5 200.5 1403.5 A22 @200W5000K_IESNA2002_NTCLR23110157MO 25 24 4 . 8 8 4 5 A 17 C4 34 9 . 5 9 19 3 . 9 1 7 7 18 0 18 C4 34 6 . 4 7 3 18 7 . 2 3 5 7 18 0 19 C4 34 0 . 9 6 6 17 5 . 6 8 8 7 18 0 20 8 . 8 5 5 24 2 . 6 8 1 25 33 4 . 5 3 6 6 A 33 9 . 3 9 1 18 6 . 4 3 25 15 6 . 8 0 1 7 A 25 0 . 0 0 9 15 1 . 5 9 3 25 67 . 0 6 4 8 C4 39 6 . 5 3 2 29 3 . 3 6 9 7 18 0 9 C4 39 4 . 7 4 7 28 9 . 4 4 3 7 18 0 10 C4 39 2 . 8 6 7 28 5 . 3 2 9 7 18 0 11 C4 39 0 . 7 4 9 28 0 . 9 4 2 7 18 0 12 C4 38 4 . 2 4 6 27 1 . 7 3 7 7 18 0 13 C4 38 3 . 2 2 1 26 9 . 5 7 7 18 0 14 C4 37 3 . 2 2 24 2 . 5 6 1 7 18 0 15 C4 36 6 . 6 9 3 22 9 . 2 5 2 7 18 0 16 C4 35 7 . 8 2 4 21 0 . 5 3 3 7 18 0 20 C4 33 6 . 7 5 7 16 7 . 1 1 3 7 18 0 21 C4 33 1 . 8 0 7 15 7 . 3 7 90 22 C4 22 3 . 8 2 8 15 6 . 1 7 1 7 90 23 C4 23 8 . 6 9 7 14 9 . 3 5 7 7 90 24 C4 32 4 . 0 8 14 0 . 0 7 1 7 18 0 25 C4 25 1 . 4 8 5 13 9 . 6 3 6 7 90 26 C4 28 9 . 3 3 2 12 2 . 2 1 3 7 90 27 C4 31 4 . 2 7 8 12 0 . 2 4 7 7 18 0 28 C4 30 4 . 7 2 5 11 4 . 6 3 6 7 18 0 29 C6 38 1 . 2 2 7 26 5 . 7 0 5 30 18 0 30 C6 36 4 . 2 6 5 22 4 . 4 2 5 30 18 0 31 C6 35 8 . 9 9 3 21 4 . 0 2 3 30 18 0 32 C6 33 9 . 7 2 17 3 . 5 6 3 30 18 0 33 C6 33 4 . 5 3 3 16 3 . 2 3 3 30 18 0 34 C6 21 4 . 4 2 7 15 9 . 0 6 4 20 90 35 C6 24 4 . 9 5 1 14 3 . 2 8 7 20 90 36 C6 25 8 . 9 8 8 13 6 . 5 8 4 20 90 37 C6 28 3 . 1 9 12 5 . 4 7 3 20 90 38 WW 40 8 . 9 3 9 29 5 . 1 1 6 7 90 39 WW 41 6 . 9 9 9 29 1 . 3 3 5 7 90 40 WW 42 4 . 9 3 8 28 7 . 5 0 3 7 90 41 WW 43 2 . 8 1 7 28 3 . 6 0 8 7 90 42 WW 44 0 . 9 5 1 27 9 . 8 4 9 7 90 43 WW 43 6 . 6 6 2 24 4 . 2 2 8 7 0 44 WW 43 4 . 5 5 3 24 0 . 1 6 4 7 0 45 WW 43 1 . 0 5 4 23 2 . 0 0 2 30 0 46 WW 41 0 . 8 5 2 19 5 . 3 0 6 30 0 47 WW 39 8 . 0 8 9 16 9 . 1 8 3 30 0 48 WW 18 5 . 5 9 3 14 6 . 1 5 20 27 0 49 WW 38 4 . 3 3 6 14 0 . 3 9 1 30 0 50 WW 19 5 . 7 3 9 10 4 . 1 1 8 20 27 0 51 WW 20 5 . 9 1 99 . 7 6 20 27 0 52 WW 21 5 . 5 4 1 97 . 4 3 1 7 27 0 53 WW 36 7 . 1 7 8 95 . 8 4 3 7 0 54 WW 22 2 . 4 3 4 91 . 6 3 1 20 27 0 55 WW 36 5 . 3 1 9 91 . 8 1 6 30 0 56 WW 36 3 . 3 8 2 87 . 8 2 2 7 0 57 WW 23 5 . 3 2 5 85 . 2 7 8 20 27 0 58 WW 24 3 . 7 8 6 83 . 4 7 7 7 27 0 59 WW 25 0 . 1 8 2 77 . 7 8 3 20 27 0 60 WW 26 3 . 2 9 3 71 . 9 6 9 20 27 0 61 WW 27 1 . 5 5 70 . 5 5 7 7 27 0 62 WW 33 7 . 5 6 1 65 . 7 8 8 5 27 0 63 WW 33 7 . 5 6 8 65 . 7 8 1 7 0 64 WW 27 8 . 2 1 64 . 4 4 7 20 27 0 65 WW 32 2 . 2 7 61 . 0 3 2 7 0 66 WW 32 2 . 1 8 60 . 9 7 25 18 0 67 WW 33 5 . 0 1 7 60 . 1 0 4 25 27 0 68 WW 33 4 . 9 2 5 59 . 9 4 6 7 0 69 WW 29 0 . 2 5 1 58 . 5 7 2 20 27 0 70 WW 32 9 . 7 5 8 57 . 4 4 9 7 0 71 WW 32 9 . 6 4 57 . 4 3 25 27 0 To t a l Q u a n t i t y : 7 1 Fc 1.68 59.2 0.0 N.A.N.A.Readings Taken 0'-0' AFG 10 10 Horizontal CDLED6W-40W-50D940-K Need help? Tech help line: (888) 722-1000 Email: sales@rablighting.com Website: www.rablighting.com Copyright © 2023 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice Page 1 of 2 Cylinders are a complete design solution. They are available in various sizes, mounting options, colors and beam angles, and suitable for indoor/outdoor use. Color: Matte black Weight: 9.6 lbs Project:Type: Prepared By:Date: Driver Info Type Constant Current 120V 0.30A 208V 0.22A 240V 0.19A 277V 0.14A Input Watts 34.6W LED Info Watts 40W Color Temp 4000K (Neutral) Color Accuracy 90 CRI R9 52 L70 Lifespan 50,000 Hours Lumens 3,363 lm Efficacy 97.2 lm/W Technical Specifications Compliance UL Listed: Suitable for wet locations IESNA LM-79 &lm-80 Testing: RAB LED luminaires and LED components have been tested by an independent laboratory in accordance with IESNAlm-79 andlm-80 Electrical Driver: Constant Current, Class 2, 120-277V, 50/60 Hz, 120V: 0.30A, 208V: 0.22A, 240V: 0.19A, 277V: 0.14A Dimming Driver: 0 - 10V (at 120-277V), TRIAC and ELV (at 120V only) THD: 12.7% at 120V, 19.7% at 277V Power Factor: 98.4% at 120V, 89.7% at 277V Optical Optics: 50° Performance Lifespan: 50,000-Hour LED lifespan based on IES LM-80 results and TM-21 calculations LED Characteristics LEDs: Long-life, high-efficacy, surface-mount LEDs Color Stability: LED color temperature is warrantied to shift no more than 200K in color temperature over a 5-year period Construction Cold Weather Starting: The minimum starting temperature is -30°C (-22°F) Maximum Ambient Temperature: Suitable for use in up to 40°C (104°F) Lens: Solite Glass Lens and Microprismatic Diffusion Lens Reflector: Vacuum-metalized polycarbonate Housing: Extruded aluminum Mounting: Wall direct/indirect light Gaskets: High-temperature silicone Green Technology: Mercury and UV free. RoHS-compliant components. Finish: Formulated for high durability and long-lasting color Other Warranty: RAB warrants that our LED products will be free from defects in materials and workmanship for a period of five (5) years from the date of delivery to the end user, including coverage of light output, color stability, driver performance and fixture finish. RAB's warranty is subject to all terms and conditions found at rablighting.com/warranty. Buy American Act Compliance: RAB values USA manufacturing! Upon request, RAB may be able to manufacture this product to be compliant with the Buy American Act (BAA). Please contact customer service to request a quote for the product to be made BAA compliant. CDLED6W-40W-50D940-K Need help? Tech help line: (888) 722-1000 Email: sales@rablighting.com Website: www.rablighting.com Copyright © 2023 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice Page 2 of 2 Dimensions Features Sleek, contemporary, architectural-grade design Universal dimming driver (TRIAC, ELV and 0-10V) 50,000-Hour LED lifespan Ordering Matrix Family Size Mounting Wattage Optic CRI/Color Temp Finish CDLED 6 W –40W –50D 940 –K 2 = 2" 4 = 4" 6 = 6" WD = Wall Direct (Downlight) Only WU = Wall Indirect (Uplight) Only W = Wall Direct/Indirect (Downlight/Uplight) S = Surface (Ceiling Mount) PC = Pendant Cord 48" Standard PS = Pendant Stem 10W = 10W 20W = 20W 26W = 26W 40W = 40W 20D = 20° 30D = 30° 40D = 40° 50D = 50° 80D = 80° WW = Wall Wash 927 = 90 CRI, 2700K 930 = 90 CRI, 3000K 935 = 90 CRI, 3500K 940 = 90 CRI, 4000K 950 = 90 CRI, 5000K W = Matte White K = Matte Black S = Matte Silver Z = Bronze CS1 OF 1 PROJECT NUMBER: 22015 MO N T I C E L L O , M N I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , s p e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I a m a d u l y l i c e n s e d En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e s t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a Li c e n s e N o . : 4 3 1 2 9 RE V I S I O N S NO . 1 2 3 4 DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Br i a n J . S c h u l t z , P E SITE PLAN SC H U L T Z E N G I N E E R I N G & S I T E D E S I G N 18 S o u t h R i v e r s i d e A v e n u e Su i t e 2 3 0 Ph : ( 3 2 0 ) 3 3 9 - 0 6 6 9 Fx : ( 8 6 6 ) 6 3 3 - 1 8 3 0 sc h u l t z e n g @ l i v e . c o m Sa r t e l l , M N 5 6 3 7 7 ww w . s c h u l t z e n g d e s i g n . c o m Da t e : x x / x x / 2 0 2 2 BU C H H O L Z P R O P E R T I E S , L L C SCALE: 1"=30' 0 30 60 120 MO N T I C E L L O B L O C K 5 2 PI N E S T R E E T & R I V E R S T R E E T W E S T AP A R T M E N T S PROPOSED BUILDING MFE = 929.00 GFE = 918.67 20'-0 " 9'-0 " (TY P ) (TYP ) 8'-8 " 8'-8 " 8'-8 " 8'-8 " 8'-8 " 8'-8 " 20' - 0 " 9'-0"(TYP) (TY P ) 18' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 9'-0" (TY P ) (TYP) 24 ' - 0 " 26'-0 " (TY P ) (TYP)(TYP) (TY P ) R : 1 5 ' - 0 " R:15'-0" 3 10 14 13 5 30 14 PARKING CALCULATION ON-SITE PARKING = 105 SPACES OFF-SITE PARKING = 12 SPACES (PARALLEL PARKING ON BROADWAY) 12 8'-0 " (TY P ) 22'-0 " (TYP) 19' - 0 " 9'-6" 19 ' - 0 " 9'-6" (TY P ) 19' - 0 " 9'-6"(TYP) 22' - 0 " (TYP)(TY P ) 21 ' - 3 " 7 R:12'-0" R : 1 2 ' - 0 " BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR APRON RETAINING WALL #1 LENGTH = 96 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 10'-4" RETAINING WALL #2 LENGTH = 42 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 10'-4" RETAINING WALL #3 LENGTH = 100 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 4'-2" CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) 8'-3" MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER NEW B618 CURB & GUTTER AS PER CITY & COUNTY STANDARDS NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS PER CITY & COUNTY STANDARDS (TYP) NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS PER CITY & MNDOT STANDARDS (TYP) NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK AS PER CITY & MNDOT STANDARDS (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE APRON 13'-0 " 6'-0" TRASH ENCLOSURE (SEE ARCH.) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (TYP) 9'-9" 12'-3 " 6'-9" 6'-0 " END CURB & GUTTER END CURB & GUTTER MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) B612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP) MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER NEW B618 CURB & GUTTER AS PER CITY STANDARDS CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AS PER CITY STANDARDSMATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP) BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (TYP) (5) CONCRETE STEPS SURFACING NOTES: 2. GRAVEL BASE COURSES SHALL BE ROLLED AND COMPACTED. TEST ROLLING OF THE GRAVEL BASE SHALL BE OBSERVED BY A SOILS ENGINEER TO VERIFY STABILITY. 3. ALL EXISTING BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE EDGES, WHICH WILL ABUT NEW BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE SURFACING SHALL BE SAWCUT TO OBTAIN A VERTICAL EDGE. 1. SUBGRADES SHALL BE SCARIFIED AND/OR COMPACTED AS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE REQUIRED COMPACTION DESCRIBED IN THE GENERAL NOTES (SHEET C1). TEST ROLLING OF THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE OBSERVED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN. LOCATIONS EXHIBITING EXCESSIVE RUTTING (PER MNDOT SPEC. 2111) SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF AGGREGATE BASE. COMPACTION TESTING IN UTILITY TRENCHES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY AN INDEPENDENT TESTING FIRM. 6. SEE SHEET C1 FOR SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS, AND CURB AND GUTTER. 4. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE NEW CONCRETE ABUTS EXISTING CONCRETE, AND AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE SEPARATE CONCRETE POURS ABUT EACH OTHER. 5. CONCRETE PAVEMENT OR APRONS, WHICH ABUT DOORWAY OPENINGS SHALL BE TIED TO THE FLOOR SLAB WITH #4 BARS ALONG THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE DOORWAY. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET C3. ADA RAMPS W/ LANDING (TYP)HANDICAP SIGNAGE (TYP) HANDICAP SIGNAGE 1. PROVIDE HANDICAP SPACE SIGNAGE AS PER MN STATUTE 169.346 ($200.00 FINE) AND MN MUTCD 2. PROVIDE "NO PARKING" SIGNAGE AT THE HEAD OF HANDICAP ACCESS AISLES, NO MORE THAN 8-FT FROM THE HEAD OF THE AISLES HANDICAP SIGNAGE (TYP) HANDICAP SIGNAGE (TYP) ADA RAMPS W/ LANDING (TYP) ADA RAMPS W/ LANDING (TYP) 1 NTS 2 NTS CIVIL SHEET INDEX CS1............................................................................................................................................SITE PLAN C1...............................................................................................STANDARD NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS C2 - C3.....................................................................................................................STANDARD DETAILS C4......................................................................................................DEMOLITION & REMOVALS PLAN C5..................................................................................................................................GRADING PLAN C6................................................................................................................SWPPP - STANDARD NOTES C7..............................................................................................................SWPPP - STANDARD DETAILS C8............................................................................................................................SWPPP - PLAN VIEW C9........................................................................................................................................UTILITY PLAN RETAINING WALL #4 LENGTH = 77 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 3'-0" RETAINING WALL #5 LENGTH = 83 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 1'-11" RETAINING WALL #6 LENGTH = 64 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 1'-6" RETAINING WALL #7 LENGTH = 32 LF HEIGHT = 0 TO 1'-5" 10 ' - 0 " MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT (TYP) MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT (TYP) MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT STREET PATCH AS PER CITY STANDARDS BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT STREET PATCH BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT STREET PATCH AS PER CITY STANDARDS MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT (TYP) NEW B618 CURB & GUTTER AS PER CITY & COUNTY STANDARDS BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT STREET PATCH AS PER CITY STANDARDS (4) CONCRETE STEPS (3) CONCRETE STEPS (3) CONCRETE STEPS (3) CONCRETE STEPS NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY STATE AND COUNTY PERMITTING FOR WORK COMPLETED WITHIN STATE AND/OR COUNTY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 11' - 6 " 11 ' - 6 " 11' - 6 " 7'-6" 7'-0" 7'-3" PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N C I V I L C I T Y S U B M I T T A L S E T - R E V I S E D 0 6 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 2 6'-5 " 3-1 1 " 3'-9 " 6'-3 " 20'-0 "9'-0 " 5'-6" 5'-4" 20'-0 " 9'-0 " (TYP) (TY P ) 8'-3 " 10 ' - 9 " 20 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 9'-0" (TY P ) (TYP) 24' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 9'-0"(TYP) (TY P ) 26'-0 " 14 24' - 0 " 26'-0 " 25'-9 " TRANSFORMER PAD (BY OTHERS) 5'-4" 32'-0 " 5'-0" 8'-0" 6'-0" 1 6 ' - 0 " 6'-9" (2) CONCRETE STEPS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FUTURE RADIUS (BASED ON CONCEPT DRAWING PROVIDED BY CITY) 8 ' - 0 " CITY TO IMPROVE WALNUT STREET. PROPOSED BLOCK 52 PROJECT DESIGN TO BE COORDINATED WITH WALNUT STREET IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN C.S.A.H. N o . 7 5 Wa l n u t S t . St a t e H w y . N o . 2 5 River St. W . SGM 3 NAH 2 AE 2 CH 1 NAH 4 PPB 4 HGL 1SGM 2 HGL 1 KSO 5 VH 2 RC 15 VH 10 RC 6 VH 6 NHE 3 HGL 2 SOD SOD SOD SOD SOD SOD SOD ROCK MULCH, TYPICAL EDGING, TYPICAL ROCK MULCH, TYPICAL EDGING, TYPICAL ROCK MULCH, TYPICAL ROCK MULCH, TYPICAL 4' x 4' TREE GRATE, TYPICAL EX. STREET TREE TO REMAIN RETAINING WALL PER CIVIL PLANS FRG 11 PLANTING NOTES 1. THESE NOTES ARE FOR GENERAL REFERENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH, AND AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS, DETAILS, ADDENDA AND CHANGE ORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH OTHER TRADES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING AND FUTURE UNDERGROUND SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS WHICH MAY CONFLICT WITH WORK TO BE DONE. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL LAY OUT PLANT MATERIAL PER PLAN AND FACE TO GIVE BEST APPEARANCE OR RELATION TO ADJACENT PLANTS, STRUCTURES OR VIEWS. 5. ALL NEWLY PLANTED MATERIAL SHALL BE THOROUGHLY SOAKED WITH WATER WITHIN 3 HOURS OF PLANTING. 6. THIRTY DAYS AFTER PLANTING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-STAKE AND STRAIGHTEN TREES AS NECESSARY. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL THOROUGHLY LOOSEN ANY COMPACTED SUBGRADES PRIOR TO PLACING TOPSOIL, TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6". 8. ALL PLANTING BEDS, ARE TO RECEIVE 2" DEPTH, CLEAN, WASHED, 34" DRESSER TRAP ROCK OVER A 5 OZ. WOVEN LANDSCAPE WEED-BARRIER FABRIC. SUBMIT SAMPLE OF MULCH AND LANDSCAPE FABRIC FOR APPROVAL. 9. ALL PLANTS TO RECEIVE 3" DEPTH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH IN LAWN AND ROCK MULCH PLANTING BEDS AS INDICATED BELOW; A. TREES- 5' DIAMETER B. SHRUBS - 2' DIAMETER C. PERENNIALS - 18" DIAMETER 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN PLANTING BEDS AND LAWN AREAS FOR A PERIOD OF 1-YEAR) UPON COMPLETION OF PLANTING OPERATIONS. MAINTENANCE TO INCLUDE WEEDING, HAND WATERING, MOWING, MULCH REPLACEMENT, EROSION REPAIR, PLANT REPLACEMENT, FERTILIZING AND AS ADDITIONALLY REQUIRED OR NECESSARY. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPORT ADDITIONAL CLEAN, NATIVE, SHREDDED TOPSOIL, AS REQUIRED TO FINE GRADE SMOOTH AND EVEN GRADING PRIOR TO SEEDING AND SHRUB BED PREPARATION. TOPSOIL TO, FREE OF WEEDS, RHIZONES, ROCKS, STICKS, CONCRETE, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL. 14. EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE, PVC EDGING, INSTALL SMOOTH AND UNIFORM AND PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 15. CONTRACTOR TO WARRANTY ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR 1-YEAR FROM COMPLETION OF PLANTING. REPLACE PLANT MATERIAL THAT IS DEAD OR HAS 50% OR MORE OF CANOPY NOT LEAFED OUT. ROCK MULCH RC Russian Cypress (Microbata decussata) TREESYM QUANTITYSIZEMATURE H x W 3 2 SGM NHE New Horizon Elm (Ulmus 'New Horizon')2" CALIPER Sienna Glen Maple (Acer x freemanii 'Sienna')2" CALIPER 60 x 40' 40-50' x 20-30' 2112" x 3-4' 4 Acolade Elm (Ulmus 'Morton')AE 2" CALIPER 70' x 40-50' Harvest Gold Linden (Tila x mongolica 'Harvest Gold')HGL 2" CALIPER 40-50' x 20' 4 SH A D E T R E E S SHRUBSYM QUANTITYSIZEMATURE H x W SH R U B S PLANT LEGEND VH #1 CONT.Varigated Hosta (Hosta undulata)181' x 2.5' PERENNIALSYM QUANTITYSIZEMATURE H x W PE R E N N I A L S #2 CONTAINER NAH Northern Acclaim Honeylocust (Gleditsia tricanthos var. inermis "Harve')2" CALIPER 35-45' x 30-35'6 CH Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)2" CALIPER 50-75' x 50'1 SOD KSO Kindred Spirit Oak (Querscus x 'Nadler')2" CALIPER 35' x 6'5 PPB First Editions Parkland Pillar Birch (Betula platyphylla "Jefpark')2" CALIPER 40' x 6-7'4 OF PROJECT NUMBER: 22015 MO N T I C E L L O , M N RE V I S I O N S NO . 1 2 3 4 DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N SC H U L T Z E N G I N E E R I N G & S I T E D E S I G N 18 S o u t h R i v e r s i d e A v e n u e Su i t e 2 3 0 Ph : ( 3 2 0 ) 3 3 9 - 0 6 6 9 Fx : ( 8 6 6 ) 6 3 3 - 1 8 3 0 sc h u l t z e n g @ l i v e . c o m Sa r t e l l , M N 5 6 3 7 7 ww w . s c h u l t z e n g d e s i g n . c o m BU C H H O L Z P R O P E R T I E S , L L C SCALE: MO N T I C E L L O B L O C K 5 2 PI N E S T R E E T & R I V E R S T R E E T W E S T AP A R T M E N T S L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e 24 1 5 3 r d . S t . N . F a r g o N D 5 8 1 0 2 70 1 . 2 9 8 . 8 3 9 2 j i m @ h d a l l c . n e t L1 3 PLANTING PLAN 0 30 60 120 FRG #1 CONT.Feather Reed Grass (Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foerster')114-5' x 2-3' 1"=30' PLANTS PART 1 - GENERAL 1.01 RELATED DOCUMENTS A.Drawings and general provisions of Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division-1 Specifications sections, apply to work of this section. B. The following items of related work are specified and included in other sections of these Specifications: SECTION 31 22 19FINISH GRADING (SITE WORK)SECTION 31 23 13SUBGRADE PREPARATION (SITE WORK) 1.02 SUMMARY A. Extent of landscape development work is shown on drawings and in schedules. Development work is to include furnishing and installing all components shown on plans, details and as described in the specifications for plantings, lawns, soil conditioning, accessories, etc. B. Sub-grade Elevations: Excavation, filling and grading required to establish elevations shown on drawings are not specified in this section. Refer to earthwork sections. 1.03 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS A. Subcontract planting work to a single firm specializing in planting work with a minimum of 3 years planting experience. B. General: Ship plant materials with certificates of inspection required by governing authorities. Comply with regulations applicable to plant materials. C. Do not make substitutions. If specified plant material is not obtainable, submit proof of non-availability to Architect, together, with proposal for use of equivalent material. D. Analysis and Standards: Package standard products with manufacturer's certified analysis. For other materials, provide analysis by recognized laboratory made in accordance with methods established by the Association of Official Agriculture Chemists, where applicable. E. Trees, Shrubs and Plants: Provide trees, shrubs and plants of quantity, size, genus, species and variety shown and scheduled for landscape work and complying with recommendations and requirements of ANSI Z60.1 “American Standards for Nursery Stock”. Provide healthy, vigorous stock, grown in recognized nursery in accordance with good horticultural practice and free of disease, insects, eggs, larvae and defects such as knots, sun-scald, injuries, abrasions, or disfigurement. F. Label at least one tree and one shrub of each variety with a securely attached waterproof tag bearing legible designation of botanical and common name. G.Inspection: The Landscape Architect may inspect trees and shrubs either at place of growth or at site before planting, for compliance with requirements for genus, species, variety, size and quality. Landscape Architect retains right to further inspect trees and shrubs for size and condition of balls and root systems, insects, injuries and latent defects, and to reject unsatisfactory or defective material at any time during progress of work. Remove rejected trees or shrubs immediately from project site. 1.04 SUBMITTALS A. Certification: Submit certificates of inspection as required by governmental authorities. Submit manufacturers or vendors certified analysis for soil amendments and fertilizer materials. Submit other data substantiating that materials comply with specified requirements. B. Certification of Grass Seed: From seed vendor for each grass-seed mono-stand or mixture stating the botanical and common name and percentage by weight of each species and variety, and percentage of purity, germination, and weed seed. Include the year of production and date of packaging. Certification of each seed mixture for turfgrass seeded areas, identifying source, including name and telephone number of supplier. C. Maintenance Instructions: Recommend procedures to Owner for maintenance of lawns during a calendar year. Submit before expiration of required maintenance periods. D. Submit to the Owner, samples of topsoil, wood mulch, rock mulch, and edging to be used in the construction of the project. Do not order, ship or install any materials, until samples have been approved. 1.05 DELIVERY, STORAGE AND HANDLING A. Packaged Materials: Deliver packaged materials in containers showing weight, analysis and name of manufacturer. Protect materials from deterioration during delivery, and while stored at site. B. Do not remove container-grown stock from containers until planting time. 1.06 JOB CONDITIONS A. Proceed with and complete landscape work as rapidly as portions of site become available, working within seasonal limitations for each kind of landscape work required. B. Utilities: Determine location of underground utilities and perform work in a manner, which will avoid possible damage. Hand excavate, as required. Maintain grade stakes set by others until removal is mutually agreed upon by parties concerned. C. Excavation: When conditions detrimental to plant growth are encountered, such as rubble fill, adverse drainage conditions, or obstructions, notify Architect before planting. D. Coordination with Lawns: Plant trees and shrubs after final grades are established and prior to planting of lawns, unless otherwise acceptable to Landscape Architect. If planting of trees and shrubs occurs after lawn work, protect lawn areas and promptly repair damage to lawns resulting from planting operations. 1.07 SPECIAL PROJECT WARRANTY A. Warranty trees, shrubs, perennials and lawns, for a period of one year after date of substantial completion, against defects including death and unsatisfactory growth, except for defects resulting from neglect by Owner, abuse by others, or unusual phenomena or incidents which are beyond the Landscape Installer's control. B. Remove and replace trees, shrubs, or other plants found to be dead or in unhealthy condition during warranty period. C. Another inspection will be conducted at end of extended warranty period, if any, to determine acceptance or rejection. Only one replacement (per tree, shrub or plant) will be required at end of warranty period, except for losses or replacements due to failure to comply with specified requirements. PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 TOPSOIL A. Import topsoil as required to complete the landscape work. It is the Landscape installer's responsibility to verify all quantities. B. Imported Topsoil shall be natural loam, which is fertile, friable, surface soil, reasonably free of subsoil, clay lumps, brush, weeds, rhizomes, litter, roots, stumps, stones larger than 1 ½” in any dimension, and other extraneous or toxic matter harmful to plant growth. Raw field topsoil is not permissible. Topsoil found to be unsuitable will be removed and replaced by the Contractor at no additional cost to the Owner. C. Obtain topsoil from local sources or from areas having similar soil characteristics to that found at project site. Obtain topsoil only from naturally, well-drained sites where topsoil occurs in a depth of not less than 4”; do not obtain from bogs or marshes. 2.02 SOIL AMEDMENTS A. Organic Soil Amendment: Organic, nitrogen stabilized mulch free from deleterious materials and suitable for trees, shrubs or plants and consisting of shredded or ground bark or other well-composted, nitrogen stabilized material with no particles exceeding 3/8” in diameter. B. Commercial Fertilizer: Complete fertilizer of neutral character, with some elements derived from organic sources and containing the following percentages of available plant nutrients: C. For trees and shrub beds, provide fertilizer of approximately 5% total nitrogen, 10% available phosphoric acid and 5% soluble potash. Verify final NPK mix from soils fertility analysis recommendations. D. For lawns, provide fertilizer with percentage of nitrogen required to provide not less than 1 lb. of actual nitrogen per 1,000 sq. ft. of lawn area and not less than 4% phosphoric acid and 2% potassium. Provide nitrogen to a form that will be available to lawn during initial period of growth; at least 50% of nitrogen to be organic form. Verify final NPK mix from soils fertility analysis recommendations. 2.03 HERBICIDES A. Pre-emergent: Provide a mixture with active ingredients consisting of a “a-a-a-trifluoro-2, 6-dinito-n, n-dipropyl-p-toluidine” (1.75% of total mixture) and inactive ingredients (98.25% of total mixture). Manufacturer: “Green Gold” by Lebanon Chemical Corp. or equal. B. Other: All other herbicides shall be approved by the Architect prior to use. 2.04 ROCK MULCH TOP DRESSING: 2.04 ROCK MULCH TOP DRESSING: A. Rock mulch to be as indicated in notes and details over a commercial grade, 5 oz., woven landscape weed barrier fabric designed for use in landscape applications. Mulch to be washed clean and free of fines, dirt and other debris. Rock mulch installed with fines, dirt or debris will be removed and replaced by Contractor at no additional cost to Owner. B. Boulders (if applicable) to be locally available granite boulders. Sizes shown on plans are minimum dimensions. 2.05 WOOD MULCH TOP DRESSING A. Wood mulch top dressing shall be 3-inch depth, organic shredded cedar free of deleterious materials, nitrogen stabilized and suitable for top-dressing of trees, shrubs and groundcovers. Trees in lawn areas to have 4” depth by 5 ft. diameter wood mulch. Ensure that there is no lawn within the 5 ft. mulch diameter. Submit sample of wood landscape mulch topdressing and fabric to Landscape Architect for approval. Pebble type bark is not acceptable. Add mulch at end of maintenance period to re-establish 4-inch depth of mulch, where mulch has settled. 2.06 PLANT MATERIALS A. Provide trees, shrubs, and other plants of size, genus, species and variety shown and scheduled for landscape work and complying with recommendations and requirements of ANSI Z60.1 “American Standard for Nursery Stock”. 2.07 GRASS MATERIALS A.Sod: Provide strongly rooted sod, not less than 2 years old and free of weeds and undesirable native grasses and machine cut to pad thickness of ¾” (+1/4”), excluding top growth and thatch. Provide only sod capable of vigorous growth and development when planted (viable, not dormant). B. Provide sod of uniform pad sizes and maximum 5% deviation in either length or width. Broken pads or pads with uneven ends will not be acceptable. Sod pads incapable of supporting their own weight when suspended vertically with a firm grasp on upper 10% of pad will be rejected. C. Provide mineral based sod, which is hardy to the region and is composed principally of the following, (peat based sod is unacceptable): Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis) var. D.Hydro-mulch (if applicable): The hydro mulch shall be a mixture of wood cellulose fiber, water and a tackifier as per the manufacturer's recommendations to provide adherence to the soil. Products to be manufactured and as commercially available specifically for hydro-mulch application. E.Hydro-mulch Grass Seed (if applicable): Seed of grass species as follows, with not less than 95 percent germination, not less than 85 percent pure seed, and not more than 0.5 percent weed seed: 1. 60% of seed mix to be Bluegrass Species: three cultivars in equal amounts such as New Glade, Award, New Chip, Royce, Champlain or Blue Stone. 2. 30% of seed mix to be Perennial Rye Species: two species in equal amounts such as Grand Slam and Stellar. 3. 10% of seed mix to be Creeping Red Fescue: 2.08 MISCELLANEOUS LANDSCAPE MATERIALS A. Edging: Edging to be commercial grade pre-cast concrete 'Bullet' style edging is to be installed as recommended by manufacturer and as indicated in details. B. Weed Barrier Fabric: Provide black polypropylene sheet 27 mils thick, 5 oz./sq. yd., grab tensile strength per ASTM D-4632; 90LB 9machine direction) 50 lbs. (cross machine direction). Provide “DeWitt” or approved equal. 2.09 OTHER MATERIALS: A. Provide all other material as required to complete the landscape planting as shown on the drawings, details and as specified herein. B. All materials shall be new, first quality and approved by the Architect. PART 3 - EXECUTION 3.01 PREPARATION A. Preparation of Sub-Grade; 1. Thoroughly till compacted sub-grade to allow proper root development for the plant material. Till in two directions until subsoil is loosened sufficiently and large lumps are removed. Roll sub-grade sufficient to eliminate settling while maintaining a suitable sub-grade for plant material roots to penetrate. 2. Clean exposed subgrade of roots, plants, sod, trash, stones over 1-1/2” in diameter, clay lumps, discarded construction materials, and other extraneous materials harmful or toxic to plant growth. 3. Install topsoil to finish grades as indicated on grading plans and specifications. Eliminate uneven, low or high areas to achieve a smooth and uniform grade. Ensure positive drainage away from buildings and towards drainage structures. 4. Mix specified organic soil amendments and fertilizers with topsoil at rates specified. Delay mixing fertilizer if planting will not follow placing of planting soil within a few days. Spread organic soil amendment at a rate of 2 cubic yards per 1,000 sf to be planted. Spread fertilizer at the rate of 20 lbs. per 1,000 sq. ft. Thoroughly mix organic soil amendment and fertilizer into top 4” of soil. B. Preparation of Unchanged Grades: 1. Where lawns and plants are to be planted in areas that have not been altered or disturbed by excavating, grading, or stripping operations, prepare soil for as follows: Strip existing vegetative matter, till to a depth of not less than 6”; apply organic soil amendments at the rate of 2 cubic yards per 1,000 sf and initial fertilizers as specified; remove high areas and fill in depressions; till soil to a homogeneous mixture of fine texture, free of lumps, clods, stones, roots and other extraneous matter. 2. Apply specified commercial fertilizer and organic soil amendment at rates specified and thoroughly mix into upper 4” of topsoil. Delay application of fertilizer if planting will not follow within a few days. 3. Fine grade lawn areas to smooth, even surface with loose, uniformly fine texture. Roll, rake and drag lawn areas, remove ridges and fill depressions, as required to meet finish grades. Limit fine grading to areas, which can be planted immediately after grading. 4. Moisten prepared lawn areas before planting if soil is dry. Water thoroughly and allow surface moisture to dry before planting lawns. Do not create a muddy soil condition. 5. Restore planting and lawn areas to specified condition if eroded or otherwise disturbed after fine grading and prior to planting. C. Preparation of Lawn Areas: 1. Fine grade lawn areas as necessary to establish smooth and uniform grades. Ensure positive and even drainage to drainage structures, swales, detention areas and ponds as applicable. Remove any debris encountered as necessary. Prepare soil for as follows: Strip existing vegetative matter; remove high areas and fill in depressions; till soil to a homogeneous mixture of fine texture, free of lumps, clods, stones, roots and other extraneous matter. 2. Apply specified commercial fertilizers specified and thoroughly mix into topsoil. Delay application of fertilizer if planting will not follow within a few days. 3. Fine grade lawn areas to smooth, even surface with loose, uniformly fine texture. Roll, rake and drag lawn areas, remove ridges and fill depressions, as required to meet finish grades. Limit fine grading to areas, which can be planted immediately after grading. 4. Moisten prepared lawn areas before planting if soil is dry. Water thoroughly and allow surface moisture to dry before planting lawns. Do not create a muddy soil condition. 5. Restore planting and lawn areas to specified condition if eroded or otherwise disturbed after fine grading and prior to planting. D. Layout individual tree and shrub locations and areas for multiple plantings. Stake locations and outline areas and secure Landscape Architect's acceptance before start of planting work. Make minor adjustments as may be requested. Ensure drainage is away from buildings and structures at 2% minimum slope. E. Excavation for Trees and Shrubs: 1. Excavate pits with vertical sides and with bottom of excavation slightly raised at center to provide proper drainage. Loosen hard subsoil in bottom of excavation. Scarify sides of pit. Pit width to be a minimum of twice the diameter of the root ball or as indicated on details, whichever is greater. 2. Thoroughly moisten excavations for trees and shrubs with water and allow to percolate out before planting. 3.02 PLANTING planting. 3.02 PLANTING A. Planting Trees, Shrubs and Perennials: 1. Layout: Coordinate layout of plants with the Landscape Architect for inspection and approval prior to planting. 2. Container Removal: Remove containers with proper tools being careful to keep rootball intact. 3. Set plant material in pit as shown on details. Set plumb and faced for best appearance. Set crown level or slightly above surrounding grade, or as indicated on details, after settlement. Trees and shrubs will be inspected for proper planting depth. Plants found to be planted at improper depths as determined by Landscape Architect will be raised (or lowered) by the Contractor to the proper depths. Remove advantageous roots that have grown above the trees flare roots. Expose the flare root as necessary. Plant trees with flare roots exposed at or slightly above the adjacent grade. 4. Backfilling: Surface amended soil will be suitable for placement as top 12 inches around sides of root-ball. Backfill below this depth should not contain organic soil amendment and can be comprised of un-amended, pulverized soil. 5. Neatly trim all broken and frayed roots. Flood plant pit when half back-filled and allow to drain. Complete back-filling. Tamp as necessary but do not over compact. 6. Watering: Thoroughly water plants immediately after planting and construct water basin per details. Water all plants for the first growing season as required to promote establishment. Note that there is no irrigation system. The Contractor will be required to make accommodations to hand water. 7. Pre-Emergent Herbicides: Apply granular herbicides at the rates and as recommended by the manufacturer. Do not apply pre-emergent herbicides where seeding will be done. If weeds appear in treated areas during the first year, landscaper shall return to remove all weeds at no cost to Owner. 8. Weed Barrier Fabric: Apply to planting beds below mulch. 9. Mulch Pits and Planted Areas: Provide not less than 3” thickness of mulch in tree pits and shrub planting beds and 2” depth in perennial beds. Keep mulch material away from base of trees, shrubs and perennials. 10. Prune: Thin out and shape trees and shrubs in accordance with standard horticulture practice. Prune trees to retain required height and spread. Unless otherwise directed by Landscape Architect, do not cut tree leaders, and remove only injured or dead branches from flowering trees, if any. Prune shrubs to retain natural character, do not shear plants. 11. Stake trees immediately after planting, as shown in details. Imbed stakes a minimum of 18” into undisturbed subsoil. Loop strap around trunk and tie to stake. Strap as shown on details. B. Sodding New Lawns 1. Lay sod within 24 hours from time of stripping. Do not plant dormant sod or if ground is frozen. 2. Lay sod to form a solid mass with tightly fitted joints. Butt ends and sides of sod strips; do not overlap. Stagger strips to offset joints in adjacent courses. Work from boards to avoid damage to sub-grade or sod. Tamp or roll lightly to ensure contact with sub-grade. Work sifted soil into minor cracks between pieces of sod; remove excess to avoid smothering of adjacent grass. 3. Water sod thoroughly with a fine spray immediately after planting. 4. Water lawn until sod is firmly rooted and established. Note that there is no irrigation system and the contractor will be required to make accommodations to hand water all lawn areas. C. Hydro-Seeding New Lawns (if applicable): 1. If vegetation exists on the seed bed areas 10 days prior to seeding it should be sprayed with a Glyphosate herbicide (Roundup or Ranger) following label directions. Remove any vegetation that will inhibit direct contact of the seed to the soil. 2. Ensure areas to be seeded are smooth, even with loose uniformly fine texture. Roll, rake and drag seeding areas to remove ridges and fill depressions as required to meet finish grades. 3. Apply lawn grass seed at the rate of 5 pounds per 1,000 s.f. 4. Install seed by method of a mechanical drill or broadcast followed by incorporation by hand raking or with a tractor drawn spike-tooth harrow. Roll seeded areas with a drum roller to ensure good seed contact with the soil. 5. Hydro-mulch at a rate of 2,000 lbs. per acre. Cover 100% of the seeded areas and avoid over-spray onto pavement and structures. Wash over-spray off of buildings. 6. Re-seed grass areas larger than 1 sq. ft. showing root growth failure, deterioration, bare or thin spots, or otherwise not having a uniform stand of grass. 7. Restore pavement, grassed areas, planted areas, and structures damaged during execution of work for this section. 3.03 MAINTENANCE A. Begin maintenance immediately after planting. Maintenance period will begin upon final completion of all planting areas with a written notice from the landscape installer to the Landscape Architect indicating substantial completion. Maintenance period days will be counted from May 15 to October 15. B. Areas to be maintained are to include those areas installed as a part of this contract. C. Maintain and Warranty trees, shrubs, lawns and other plants until final acceptance or as noted on plans, but in no case less than the following period: 1-YEAR after substantial completion of planting for general maintenance and watering for length of time as required for establishment D. Maintain trees, shrubs and other plants by pruning, cultivating, weeding, watering and as required for healthy growth. Restore planting saucers. Tighten and repair stake supports and reset trees and shrubs to proper grades or vertical position as required. Apply pesticides only as required to keep trees and shrubs free of insects and disease. Adjust watering as weather dictates for optimum plant establishment. Do not over-water plantings. E. Maintain lawns by watering, fertilizing, weeding, watering (hand watering as required), weekly mowing, trimming, and other operations such as rolling, re-grading and replanting as required to establish a smooth acceptable lawn, free of eroded or bare areas. Adjust watering as weather dictates for optimum lawn establishment. The contractor must periodically water by hand or truck as necessary to facilitate establishment. F. Immediately replace all unhealthy or dead plant materials found during the 1-year warranty period. 3.04 CLEANUP AND PROTECTION A. During planting work, keep pavements clean and work area in an orderly condition. B. Protect planting work and materials from damage due to planting operations, operations by other contractors and trades and trespassers. Maintain protection during installation and maintenance periods. Treat, repair or replace damaged planting work as directed. 3.05 SATISFACTORY LAWNS A. Satisfactory Lawn: A healthy, well-rooted, even-colored, viable lawn has been established, free of weeds, open joints, bare areas, and surface irregularities. B. Repair areas that erode before lawn establishes. Replace lost topsoil, grade even, reseed and re-hydromulch as necessary. C. Reestablish lawns that do not comply with requirements and continue maintenance until lawns are satisfactory. 3.06 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE A. When planting work is completed, including maintenance, Landscape Architect will, upon request, make an inspection to determine acceptability. B. Where inspected planting work does not comply with requirements, replace rejected work and continue specified maintenance until re-inspected by Landscape Architect and found acceptable. Remove rejected plants and materials promptly from project site. OF PROJECT NUMBER: 22015 MO N T I C E L L O , M N RE V I S I O N S NO . 1 2 3 4 DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N SC H U L T Z E N G I N E E R I N G & S I T E D E S I G N 18 S o u t h R i v e r s i d e A v e n u e Su i t e 2 3 0 Ph : ( 3 2 0 ) 3 3 9 - 0 6 6 9 Fx : ( 8 6 6 ) 6 3 3 - 1 8 3 0 sc h u l t z e n g @ l i v e . c o m Sa r t e l l , M N 5 6 3 7 7 ww w . s c h u l t z e n g d e s i g n . c o m BU C H H O L Z P R O P E R T I E S , L L C SCALE: MO N T I C E L L O B L O C K 5 2 PI N E S T R E E T & R I V E R S T R E E T W E S T AP A R T M E N T S L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e 24 1 5 3 r d . S t . N . F a r g o N D 5 8 1 0 2 70 1 . 2 9 8 . 8 3 9 2 j i m @ h d a l l c . n e t L2 3 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS 2 A502 _______ 1 A501 _______ 9 A602 _______ 4 2 2 2 1 3 1 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 6 1 6 6 4 3 64 3 4 3 1 A503 _______ 2 A501 _______ 1 A507 _______ 4 3 2121 3 6 6 6 5 56 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 6 44 624 1 2 2 4 2 2 2 442 42 4 2 1 3 2 1. MECHANICAL LOUVERS AND EXHAUST VENTS PAINT TO MATCH COLOR OF ADJACENT SIDING 2. SEE CIVIL FOR GRADING 3. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTING DEPTH, SIZE, & LOCATION 4. SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR WINDOW TAGS 5. VTAC VENTS TO MATCH COLOR OF EXTERIOR WALL -ARCHITECT TO APPROVE GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES: BRK-1 BRICK BASIS FOR DESIGN: HEBRON MODULAR INSTALLATION: 1/2" RUNNING BOND COLOR: SEA GRAY 12 BRK-2 BRICK BASIS FOR DESIGN: HEBRON MODULAR INSTALLATION: 1/2" RUNNING BOND COLOR: GARNET MTL-H HORIZONTAL METAL WALL PANEL BASIS FOR DESIGN: PAC-CLAD PRECISION HIGHLINE C1 COLOR: SLATE GRAY MTL-V VERTICAL METAL WALL PANEL BASIS FOR DESIGN: PAC-CLAD PRECISION HIGHLINE C1 COLOR: SLATE GRAY EFIS BASIS FOR DESIGN: DRYVIT COLOR: SLATE GRAY EFIS BASIS FOR DESIGN: DRYVIT COLOR: BEIGE TYPICAL MATERIALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 A502 _______ 1 A501 _______ 9 A602 _______ 3 4 6 4 4 6 ? 6 6 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 44 6 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 ?4 4 33 1 A503 _______ 2 A501 _______ 1 A507 _______ 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ? 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 3 6 4466 6 22 2 2 2 2 2 46 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 BRK-1 BRICK BASIS FOR DESIGN: HEBRON MODULAR INSTALLATION: 1/2" RUNNING BOND COLOR: SEA GRAY 12 BRK-2 BRICK BASIS FOR DESIGN: HEBRON MODULAR INSTALLATION: 1/2" RUNNING BOND COLOR: GARNET MTL-H HORIZONTAL METAL WALL PANEL BASIS FOR DESIGN: PAC-CLAD PRECISION HIGHLINE C1 COLOR: SLATE GRAY MTL-V VERTICAL METAL WALL PANEL BASIS FOR DESIGN: PAC-CLAD PRECISION HIGHLINE C1 COLOR: SLATE GRAY EFIS BASIS FOR DESIGN: DRYVIT COLOR: SLATE GRAY EFIS BASIS FOR DESIGN: DRYVIT COLOR: BEIGE TYPICAL MATERIALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. MECHANICAL LOUVERS AND EXHAUST VENTS PAINT TO MATCH COLOR OF ADJACENT SIDING 2. SEE CIVIL FOR GRADING 3. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTING DEPTH, SIZE, & LOCATION 4. SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR WINDOW TAGS 5. VTAC VENTS TO MATCH COLOR OF EXTERIOR WALL -ARCHITECT TO APPROVE GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES: Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 1 3A. TABLED - Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for a proposed single-family residential development including attached and detached units in an R-1 (Single-Family) Residential district. Applicant: JBP Land, LLC Prepared by: Grittman Consulting - Stephen Grittman, City Planner Meeting Date: 01/07/2025 Council Date (pending Commission action): 01/27/2025 Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Chief Building & Zoning Official, Community and Economic Development Coordinator, Assistant City Engineer ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of Development Stage Planned Unit Development 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-03 recommending approval of Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Meadowbrook, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2025-03 recommending approval of Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Meadowbrook, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2025-03. Decision 2: Consideration of Rezoning to Planned Unit Development 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-04 recommending approval of rezoning of land to be platted as Meadowbrook as Meadowbrook Planned Unit Development District subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2025-04 recommending approval of rezoning the land to be platted as Meadowbrook as Meadowbrook Planned Unit Development District, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2025-04. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 2 Decision 3: Consideration of Preliminary Plat 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-05 recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Meadowbrook subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC-2025-05 recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Meadowbrook, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on Resolution No. PC-2025-05. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: See plat PID #: 155500231200 Planning Case Number: 2024-46 Request(s): 1. Development Stage Planned Unit Development 2. Rezoning to Planned Unit Development 3. Preliminary Plat Deadline for Decision: February 7, 2025 (60-day deadline) April 8, 2025 (120-day deadline), extension letter sent to applicant Land Use Designation: Single-Family Residential Zoning Designation: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: Notice of Decision – No wetlands present Current Site Uses: Vacant Land Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single-Family Residential East: Single-Family Residential South: Civic/Institutional/Undeveloped (Township) West: Single-Family Residential Project Description: The project consists of a plat of approximately 56 acres of undeveloped land east of Edmonson Avenue NE, west of the Hunter’s Crossing single family subdivision, and companion Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 3 request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) for flexibility in lot size and mix. The subject property was originally preliminary platted as a part of the Hunters Crossing subdivision and was proposed to include a mix of R-1 (Single Family) lots and attached townhouses. (Exhibit S) The current application for plat and PUD includes a similar mix of units, although several of the single-family lot sizes are proposed to be reduced in size from the R-1 standard to lots with a variety of widths. Overall, the project proposes 182 units over a developable area of 44 acres, with 109 detached single-family lots and 73 attached single-family lots. The project is proposed to be developed in three phases over an estimated 6-year period. PUBLIC HEARING & PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION - JANUARY 7, 2025: The Planning Commission reviewed the requests and held a public hearing on the applications for Development Stage PUD, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning to PUD on January 7, 2025. During the public hearing, there were several members of the public present to address the Commission on matters relating to the proposed street network, unit count, and introduction of townhomes within the project. A petition regarding the street connections was entered into the record and is included within this agenda report. The draft minutes of January 7, 2025 are included for consideration as part of the regular February Planning Commission agenda. The Commission also heard from the applicant regarding the Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval, specifically their ability to meet design standards for both the single-family attached and detached products. Following the closing of the public hearing, the Commission moved to table action on all items to the regular meeting of February 4, 2025. Planning Commission requested that staff and the applicant review the conditions with the intent of clarifying where compliance could be achieved and where recommendations for adjustment might still be recommended. Commission closed the hearing on the requests. Additional public comment on the item on February 4, 2025 is at the discretion of the Planning Commission Chair. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 4 CONDITIONS REVIEW AND ANALYSIS – FEBRUARY 4, 2025: Staff and the applicant have had the opportunity to review their proposed plans with the original Exhibit Z for both site and building compliance. The table below provides information on alignment with the original conditions, as well as where the applicant and staff recommendation continue to differ. The primary area of variance between recommended PUD standards and the applicant’s proposal are the 40% façade frontage and maximum 6’ forward garage front standards. Staff continue to recommend meeting the 40% façade frontage and 6’ garage-forward code requirements or meeting an alternative for extension of a front patio or usable porch. The applicant instead proposes alternative building material enhancements (although not including meeting the 10% brick/stone) and front yard landscaping rather than meeting the recommendation for both standards. The 40% façade frontage and 6’ garage-forward zoning code standards exist with the specific intent of creating subdivisions which function as neighborhoods in both appearance and activity. The integration of home-forward design and substantial façade frontage establish curb appeal and livable space within the front yard. These enhancements also mitigate the reduction in the other standards the applicant has requested, including the narrower lots, setbacks and brick/stone flexibility. With these two conditions excepted, staff believe the plans prepared, or to be revised, comply with the conditions. The resolutions and draft PUD ordinance have been updated to reflect the proposed PUD standards as recommended by staff in the table below. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 5 CONDITION COMPLIANCE STATUS RECOMMENDATION . 1. Verification that the building and design proposals for the Single Family detached units and lots will meet the following standards: a. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards The plat and PUD plans comply with a minimum 25’ front yard and 6’ side yard setback for all single-family lots. The rear yards exceed the minimum. exceeds rear yard at 25’. The PUD ordinance will include this standard as written; the City Attorney recommends the PUD ordinance list those flexibilities granted from the base code. The 25’ front yard setback is a variation from the required R-1 setback. The T-N District allows 25’ setbacks, but only in combination with livable front façade and building requirements. b. Minimum building sizes of 1,050 finished square feet, and a minimum of 1,700 square feet of finishable area. All home plans meet a minimum of 1,050 finished square feet and a minimum of 1,585 finishable square footage, with the exception of the Augusta villa plan. The Augusta plan meets a minimum of 1,355 square feet of finishable square footage. The applicant has indicated that a maximum of 25% of the lots would accommodate the Augusta plan. Staff would recommend acceptance of the applicant’s proposed square footages, but only in conjunction with compliance with the other design standard recommendations below. Proposed PUD ordinance standard: Minimum building sizes of 1,050 finished square feet and a minimum of 1,585 finishable square feet, with the exception of not more than 25% of the detached single-family lots at 1,355 square feet of finishable square foot home plans. c. Garage square footage of at least 480 square feet. Applicants indicate that the base 2-car garage models total 476 square feet, otherwise all others comply or exceed. Staff would recommend acceptance of the applicant’s proposed square footage minimum of 476 square feet, but only in conjunction with compliance with the other design standard recommendations below. Proposed PUD ordinance standard: Garage square footage shall be a minimum of 476 square feet. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 6 d. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. All designs compliant. The PUD ordinance will include this standard. The R-1 includes the additional language allowing for roofline variations, the T-N does not. Proposed PUD ordinance standard: Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. e. Brick/Stone on front façade equal to at least 15% of all front-facing surfaces; or a minimum of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. The lowest finish level for each model of home plan would not comply. The applicant has indicated that they will greatly exceed the 20% of combined façade features. Their request is to set the minimum at 20% of total façade alternatives, with some brick or stone, but no minimum amount set. A reminder that the percentage calculation for brick and stone is less the area of the garage doors and windows. Staff would recommend allowing the applicant’s combined facade feature variation, but with a maximum percentage of units that will not meet the 10% brick/stone requirement and only in conjunction with the other standards as recommended. Proposed PUD ordinance standard: A maximum of 30% of all single-family units may meet less than a 10% brick or stone requirement when a combination of board and batten, corbels, shakes, garage windows or other façade features exceed 20% of the front façade. f. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street not less than 40% of the width of the structure. The applicant has reviewed all models and elevations. The Oxford and Augusta will not meet this requirement, at 33 and 37% of the front façade. They are amenable to a percentage limit on the number of units which do not meet this standard and suggest other exterior building material components (garage door windows, coach lighting, etc.) to offset the deficiency. Staff continue to recommend compliance with this condition. The suggested building features do not increase the livable area exposed to the street. Staff propose livable front area enhancement alternatives to address the deficiency. Proposed PUD ordinance standard: Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street not less than 40% of the width of the structure, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 7 g. Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. The applicant has indicated that a number of their home plans (30%) do not comply with this requirement, which is a base code standard in the T-N District. This standard is intended to address home-forward design in areas with narrower lots. The applicant proposes exterior building and landscaping enhancements to support this flexibility. Staff continue to recommend compliance with this condition as originally written. The proposed enhanced building features do not increase the livable area exposed to the street. Staff propose livable front space enhancements to address the deficiency – porch or patio. Proposed PUD ordinance standard: Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. h. Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. Applicants indicate they will comply. Revised landscaping plans will be required. The PUD ordinance will include this standard as written. i. Establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two-car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line/curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD. Applicants accept this condition as modified. Revised plans will be required. The PUD ordinance will include this standard as written. j. Provide an anti-monotony plan to further support the PUD flexibility requested. The applicant has provided an anti- monotony plan. Proposed PUD standard: The PUD will comply with the anti-monotony plan included with the PUD plans. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 8 2.Verification that the building and design proposals for attached Single Family units and lots will meet the standards identified in this report, specifically: a. Reduce visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one- fourth and replace with additional green space and tree planting. Applicants accept this condition. The PUD ordinance will include this standard as written. b. Update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs (as opposed to perennials) in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. Applicants accept this condition. The PUD ordinance will include this standard as written. c. Modification of the garage designs to increase interior widths by at least one foot, or more, to better accommodate parking and access to vehicles. Applicant has indicated that they will add 2’ of depth to the garages and/or adjust the units and lots to increase the length of the driveways for interior units. Staff concurs that either option presented by the applicant will alleviate some of the conditions present when garage width is narrower than recommended for 2 car designs. Proposed PUD ordinance standard: Townhome unit designs will add 2’ of depth to the garages and/or adjust the units and lots to increase the length of the driveways for interior units. d. Provide detail on building materials for the units, with LP Smartside or fiber- cement board (such as Hardie) required; in the Applicants indicate that they can meet 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. Staff support the applicant’s proposed revision to the condition. Proposed PUD ordinance standard: Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 9 alternative brick/stone on front façade equal to at least 15% of all front- facing surfaces; or a minimum of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. 3. Update landscape plans showing tree planting locations for the trees in the townhouse portion of the project and verification of tree planting for all areas per code requirements. No change No change 4. Update landscaping plans showing additional clusters of shrub plantings and seating areas in the outlots comprising the development’s stormwater ponding areas. No change No change 5. Provide written confirmation of allowable use for a non- motorized bicycle park by the powerline easement holder. Land dedication for park is contingent on this requirement. No change No change Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 10 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated December 23, 2024, including the comments of January 2, 2025. No change No change 7. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December 31, 2024, and comments dated January 2, 2025. No change No change 8. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. No change No change Other Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD: 9. Compliance with comments from the Wright County Highway Engineer’s Office and any of the Wright County Surveyor. No change No change 10. The submitted Homeowner’s Association Documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of comment. No change No change Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 11 In summary, staff and the applicant have worked to develop unit design alternatives which meet goals for development of housing variety and affordability, as well as the development of neighborhoods with character and value retention. Regarding the proposed through-street circulation pattern, the City Engineer’s office has prepared a memo for policymaker review. It is important to note that staff provided direction to the applicant to submit a preliminary plat consistent with the street connectivity pattern approved with the 2008 Hunters Crossing preliminary plat. The applicant complied with that request. The information below is carried forward from the January 7, 2025 staff report for the Planning Commission’s reference. ANALYSIS: While technically separate, the Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD approvals typically run together and share many of the same comments and review notes. Thus, this report consolidates the comments for these two approvals and the request for rezoning to PUD. The Planning Commission will be asked to consider separate resolutions for each action. The ordinance regulating PUD allows for rezoning at the time of approval Development Stage PUD for multi-phase plats/PUDs, subject to resolution of Development Stage conditions of approval. Land Use The City’s 2040 Monticello Vision + Plan Land Use Map designates this area for Low Density Residential land use, a pattern that is consistent with the existing development areas to the north, east, and west. The 2040 Plan further defines Low Density Residential as being between 3 and 6 units per acre. The land area proposed for development is located within the current municipal boundary and does not require annexation. As described above, the proposed Meadowbrook plat would create a total of 182 single-family residential units. With a net developable area of 43.96 acres (accounting for the powerline easement area), the resulting net residential density is 4.14 units per acre. The proposed development is well within the 3-6 units per acre designated within the 2040 Plan. The 2040 Plan also pairs the Low Density land use category with the R-A and R-1 zoning districts, which range from 10,000-16,000 in lot area. However, the 2040 Plan also notes the need to address the “missing middle” housing category, allowing for slightly denser (and thus Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 12 more affordable) than standard suburban housing styles. The lot sizes specified within the 2040 Plan suggest a range from 6,000 square feet to 16,00 square feet for lower-density residential land uses. The land use patterns and lot sizes proposed by the Meadowbrook project are consistent with these goals, and subject to other development details, can be pursued under the existing 2040 Comprehensive Plan directives. To accomplish the blend of blend of smaller single-family lots and attached units, while maintaining consistency with the density directions of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicants are seeking a Planning Unit Development (PUD). PUD is a tool to permit flexibility from the base zoning requirements, enhance opportunities for residential amenities, and still meet the Comprehensive Plan goals. Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat illustrates a total lot count of 109 detached single-family lots and 73 individual attached townhome lots. The detached lots are generally based on minimum widths of 52 and 62 feet, although some vary upward due to street design, easements, and other factors. A portion of the plat includes a series of lots that are more typical of the R-1 standards in the northeast corner of the plat area, north of the power line corridor easement that transects the site. This area is also impacted by a private gas line easement that requires some of the lots in this area to maintain larger depth and setbacks. There are 17 such lots in this area. Many of these lots have widths and areas that exceed the R-1 lot area regulations. In addition to the single-family lots, the project includes 73 row townhomes along the western portion of the project area. This land use pattern generally reflects the original plat and PUD approvals granted in the 2000s. As noted above, approximately 10.5 acres of the site is encumbered by a powerline corridor. In addition to the residential units, the applicants propose to reserve an area below the powerline corridor for a non-motorized bicycle park of approximately 3.5 acres, with the remaining 7 acres for ponding and other undeveloped space. These spaces are shown as outlots within the plat. Lot Dimensions. As noted above, the corresponding zoning districts for the Low-Density Residential (LDR) designation are the R-A and R-1 districts, most commonly R-1. The applicable R-1 zoning standards for lots are as follows: Lot Area (Average): 12,000 square feet Lot Width (Average): 80 feet (70 minimum) Front Setback: 30 feet Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 13 Rear Setback: 30 feet The proposed plan includes a variety of lot widths and lot areas, some of which are consistent with the R-1 baseline, and a majority of the others which are reduced in size to lots of 52 or 62 feet in width with 6-foot side setbacks. This results in a change from what are commonly 60- to 80 foot wide building pads in the R-1 district to 40 feet or 50 feet in width for the proposed plat, respectively. The proposed plat has lot sizes that range in area from approximately 6,600 square feet (for the 52 foot lots) and 7,600 square feet (for the 62 foot lots) to more than 18,000 square feet, with a few at much greater area. Again, this dimension is consistent with 2040 Plan guidance for LDR land uses, although the R-1 zoning sets the area at a higher threshold. In addition to flexing both lot width and area, the applicant seeks side yard setbacks of 6 feet (rather than 10 feet), and front and rear yard setbacks of 25 feet, rather than the typical R-1 standards of 30 feet. For the townhome lots, the R-3 (Medium Density) Residential zoning standard is most applicable. The R-3 ordinance requires a net of 3,500 square feet per dwelling unit. At approximately 4,800 square feet of net area per dwelling unit, including common area surrounding the units, the proposed townhome area meets the base R-3 dwelling unit area requirement. It should be noted that the R-3 zoning standards apply to projects utilizing public street and would result in building spacing with a distance of 120 feet between facing buildings. In the proposed PUD design, those cross-street distances are reduced to approximately 73-74 feet, utilizing privately owned and maintained streets. Easements. The applicant’s Preliminary Plat shows typical drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of all lots, and additional easement covering the impacted area of the gas line corridor. Stormwater ponds (as well as the park area) are all located within the power line corridor, designated as three outlots. The detail shows the lot boundary easements as 6 feet interior, and 12 feet along streets and at the perimeter of the plat, consistent with City requirements. The preliminary plat illustrates an additional dedication of right of way width along Edmonson Avenue, as required by the City Engineer for this collector road. This dedication area will also accommodate the required bituminous trail along the east side of the plat. Access and Circulation. The plat is laid out to accommodate street connections with adjoining neighborhoods, as originally contemplated by these earlier plats and the previously approved preliminary plat of Hunters Crossing. These street connections are critical to ensuring more balanced traffic circulation for this area of the community, and Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 14 that no existing or future neighborhood absorbs an undue level of traffic due to limited roadway options. The largest amount of traffic generated in this project is most likely to navigate to one of the two access points with Edmonson Ave. NE at 87th Street and 89th Street. The densest portion of the plat lies along Edmonson and these two intersections. Edmonson Avenue is a collector route and is designed to accommodate the expected traffic volumes. Left turn lanes on Edmonson Avenue at the access points to the development are required. The applicant has provided a traffic memo which evaluates traffic volume and circulation. For pedestrian circulation, sidewalks are provided on one side of all public streets. In addition, A trail connection from the proposed cul-de-sac through the outlot to the park is proposed. A trail along the east side of Edmonson is also required. Park Dedication. Park dedication has been an item of discussion with Parks department staff and Parks Arts and Recreation Commission members. The developer has been working with PARC to set aside a portion of the property for a non-motorized bicycle course. The park area is shown as a portion of the approximately 3.5 acre Outlot A. Given the presence of powerlines in the area, as well as stormwater facilities, the final park dedication is subject to verification with the development contract and final plat. The developer also proposes to provide and construct on-street parking for the park along 89th Street. The final design is subject to the City Engineer’s requirements for spacing purposes. The PARC recommendation for dedication is as follows: Recommendation for park dedication for Meadowbrook as a combination of land dedication and cash-in-lieu payment as detailed in the staff report of November 14, 2024, with land dedication contingent on written confirmation of allowable use by the powerline easement holder. This includes the following components: a. Land area dedication credit for land within “Outlot A” of the preliminary plat intended for exclusively park purposes, not including stormwater pond area within the outlot. (The applicant has provided an updated park dedication exhibit for this purpose.) b. Land area dedication credit for 30’ in width across pathway section lengths within “Outlot B” and “Outlot C” which do not serve a stormwater maintenance function. (The applicant has provided an updated park dedication exhibit for this purpose.) Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 15 c. Pending a balance of park dedication due to meet the 11% requirement, payment by cash-in-lieu for the equivalent remaining. Other parks and open space impacts of the project include the requirement for sidewalk along one side of all public streets, and continuation of the Edmonson pathway along the length of the plat boundary. In addition to these connections, staff would request that the applicants evaluate the cost and feasibility of completing the missing connection along Park Drive to Farmstead Avenue in the Klein Farms Sixth Addition right of way. That portion of sidewalk would be valuable in supporting a pedestrian route to both Pioneer Park and the school campus. If determined to be feasible, park dedication would be applicable to the cost. Staff and the applicant team have discussed this improvement and determined that the recommended alternative is to add a 10’ bituminous trail on the north side of the project within an existing City easement, connecting to Farmstead Avenue. A pedestrian crossing to the sidewalk on the east side of Farmstead will be provided. This improvement is eligible for park dedication credit. The sidewalk along the south side of Park Drive within the plat is still required to be constructed with the project. A future sidewalk extension within the existing neighborhood will be added to the City’s Sidewalk Connection Map for future construction. Wetland Impact/Environmental Review The applicant has completed a wetland delineation and evaluation which demonstrated there are no wetlands on the property. No Environmental Assessment Worksheet is required for the development based on the number of units in the proposed plat. Development Stage PUD/Rezoning to PUD As a reminder, the information below is carried forward from the January 7th, 2025 report. The updated review of the PUD design standards is reflected in the table above and revised Exhibit Z Conditions. Detached Single-Family For adoption of the PUD ordinance for Meadowbrook, staff recommend the development of a set of minimum standards, rather than adoption of individual building plans. In similar subdivisions that have sought PUD flexibility from lot and building size for detached single-family units, the City has used the T-N (Traditional Neighborhood) zoning district standards as a guide to building materials and lot design requirements, with the expectation that these enhancements help support the use of PUD and the Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 16 departures from standard zoning requirements. These standards are summarized as follows: 1. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. 2. Minimum building sizes of 1,050 finished square feet, and 2,000 square feet finishable area. 3. Garage square footage of at least 480 square feet, exterior dimension. 4. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. 5. Brick/Stone on front façade equal to at least 15% of all front-facing surfaces. 6. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street no less than 40% of the width of the structure. 7. Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. 8. Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. The single-family detached lots all meet or exceed the lot dimensional standard in item 1 above, but it is unclear whether the other building design standards in items 2-7 would be met in all home plans proposed for Meadowbrook. As a condition of approval, the applicant is asked to verify consistency, or identify departures from the other standards above, and identify additional amenity treatments which offset any downward modification of City standards. Verification of these items will set minimum standards for the PUD via the rezoning ordinance, rather than adoption of individual building plans. In regard to the building square footages, the applicant has provided various building elevations and floor plans for the detached single-family homes expected within the project area. A summary of the unit sizes for Meadowbrook is shown in the applicant’s presentation materials and range from 1,355 to 3,500 square feet and above, although it is not clear what is finished versus finishable space on the plans. The City’s standard threshold for detached dwellings in both the T-N and R-1 District is a 1,050 square foot foundation and 2,000 square feet of finishable space. The applicant will need to verify the finished and finishable square footage of their plans. For Exhibit Z, staff has proposed a minimum finished square footage of 1,000 square feet and 1,700 square feet finishable. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 17 The applicant’s building design and packet also detail the architectural components of the proposed homes. The majority of the plans provided include significant architectural detail, including brick/stone on the front façade, and a mix of shakes, corbels, board and batten and other siding features. In addition to the standards above, staff would recommend two additional design standards applicable for the Meadowbrook PUD. 10. Driveway widths for all units be limited to a maximum of 20 feet at the back of curb/curb cut, and for lots with 2-car garages, a maximum width of 20 feet overall. 11. The applicant provide an anti-monotony plan to further support the PUD flexibility requested. The driveway width standard is due to the limited lot widths. More expansive driveways lead to a reduction in green space and tree planting areas, particularly as all utilities and services are squeezed into the narrower lots. Moreover, overflow visitor parking on- street is severely impacted by the narrower lot widths. Ensuring that driveway curb cuts are limited helps avoid the loss of these temporary on-street parking uses. The anti-monotony plan requirements would limit houses of the exact some façade style from locating directly across or next to one-another, in example. This ensures a neighborhood design including more character and variety. The PUD process permits flexibility in lot and building design, but the standards identified above are intended to ensure that this project is treated in a manner similar to other PUD projects similarly situated and in concert with the 2040 Plan’s policy for Neighborhood Diversity & Life-Cycle Housing: “Sustain a diverse array of neighborhood character and housing types throughout Monticello.” Townhouses As identified above, the project includes a total of 73 attached townhouse units in a series of 3, 4, 6, and 8 unit buildings. All of the townhouses are designed to front on internal private streets that serve only this portion of the project area, connecting to the public streets on the east (Country Avenue), and to the north (89th Street NE). • Building design and materials. The proposed townhouse drawings presented by the applicant include a variety of siding styles (lap, board and batten, shake, etc.), but do not include materials information. Staff would recommend that an amenity aspect of the PUD flexibility is applied to restrict the use of vinyl siding materials. LP Smartside or fiber-cement board (such as Hardie) are the preferred siding materials, in addition to surfaces covered by masonry or glass. These Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 18 details should be specified as a condition of further approvals. In the alternative at least 15% of the façade shall be brick/stone in addition to other features such as board and batten, shakes, or similar. The Exhibit Z Conditions of Approval are written to accommodate this alternative. • Unit spacing. The plans illustrate adequate building spacing and private street dimensions (24-25 foot driveway depths and 25 foot street widths). These dimensions result in a minimum building face-to-face separation distance of 73 feet. For the units that back up to Edmonson Avenue NE, there is a substantial rear yard which would permit that row of units to be shifted a few feet to the west, increasing the face-to-face distances between buildings, and thus, increasing driveway lengths by a few feet. This additional spacing will limit the congestion in the private streets which are required to handle both internal traffic and pedestrian movements (no sidewalks are included in the private street areas). • Landscaping. While the landscaping plan appears to list the required number of trees for the lots, the landscaping plans are recommended to be revised and enhanced to illustrate proposed tree locations to avoid later conflicts with as- built hard cover and/or utility installations and to verify that the noted tree requirements will be met for each lot/unit. Adequate shrub planting quantities are provided, based on the example plan. However, approximately three- quarters of the “shrubs” proposed are perennial plants, rather than actual shrubs. Staff would recommend the shrub-perennial ratios be flipped, and additional shrub types include evergreen shrubs to enhance year-round impact. • Parking. Parking is shown to include two garage spaces, plus two driveway spaces, and off-street parking bays for visitors at a rate of approximately one space per two units. This supply is more than adequate to meet the demand in the attached unit portion of the project. Staff would be comfortable reducing the parking bay space supply by one-fourth, and instead increasing the tree planting in those areas to enhance the green space and shade. This would retain a visitor parking ratio of one space per three units, which with unit parking, should be more than adequate. • Garage sizes. The garages for the townhomes are significantly smaller than the City’s typical standard of 450 square feet for attached residences. The applicants show an interior space of 420 square feet and have provided a graphic illustration of two vehicles (SUV and mid-size passenger car) parked in that Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 19 space. Staff notes that the illustration also shows space for trash and recycling containers. At issue is the accessibility for those vehicles, given the need for door swing space. Both vehicles would limit the ability for residents to use the vehicles due to the proximity of the vehicle doors to garage sidewalls. The trash bins would appear to raise a separate issue in wheeling them out of the garage between the cars if the vehicles were parked as shown. If the plan is approved as shown, there is likely to be a significant incentive for residents to park vehicles outside in the interior courtyards (on private driveways) of the development. This space is already of limited usability due to the driveway needs, but it does create some green and open space in these types of townhouse neighborhoods. But when they are dominated by parked cars, both the visual impacts and utility of the spaces for outdoor use are further restricted. This result – cars forced to park outside due to restrictions in the covered garage – also impacts winter conditions, where snow cannot be removed efficiently. While it is understood that some residents will choose to park outside regardless of design, the City’s standard is intended to minimize this likelihood, based on experience with small garage development in prior years. If the Planning Commission chooses to accommodate the proposed designs, these impacts should be presumed as the projects is developed and matures over time. Staff would recommend interior garage widths of at least one or preferably two extra feet. It is acknowledged that the applicant would need an alternative floor plan to accommodate this preference. Other PUD Amenities/Enhancements. As a neighborhood benefitting from PUD flexibility in lot size, building size, potentially building materials, additional amenities help reach the threshold for PUD consideration. In this case, the applicant has set aside a large area under the powerline corridor for ponding and is providing grading to accommodate a pathway that would connect this corridor to other existing and future pathway areas. These grading improvements are typically a function of park dedication requirements and general grading of the site. To enhance those areas, staff would recommend a scattering of shrub-planting clusters, rather than just seeded grassland. Especially on the upper levels of these outlots, there are adaptable shrub varieties that would greatly enhance the view of these areas, without compromising the power line corridor tree planting Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 20 restrictions. These enhancements would also serve to create a more definable sense of place for the neighborhood. As noted, the application should also be supplemented with a clear statement of minimum building design and lot standards for the PUD ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff continue to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD, and Rezoning to Meadowbrook Residential PUD District, based on findings in the attached resolutions, and subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. The staff recommendation is made subject to Exhibit Z, which includes the updated design standards as shown in the table included with this report. The proposed standards provide a balance between the flexibility in lot size and home square footage requested by the applicant with the retention of design enhancements to the front façade and living areas in support of 2040 Plan goals. The proposed Meadowbrook project includes a variety of housing types, including varying detached single-family styles, as well as attached single-family product. The area is located within the existing city boundary, with municipal utilities directly adjacent. The proposed plat includes desired vehicle and pedestrian connectivity elements, as well as the provision for open-space. Subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z, the proposed plat and PUD are consistent with the 2040 Vision + Plan’s goal for the development of Complete Neighborhoods. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2025-03 – Development Stage PUD B. Resolution PC-2025-04 – Rezoning to PUD C. Resolution PC-2025-05 – Preliminary Plat D. Ordinance No. XXX – Meadowbrook PUD, Draft E. Aerial Site Image F. Applicant Design Standard Supplemental Materials: a. Building Materials b. 40% Façade Frontage c. 6’-Maximum Garage Forward d. Proposed Conditions of Approval G. City Engineer’s Street Connection Memo, dated January 23, 2025 H. Applicant Narrative & Presentation, including: a. Narrative b. Development Data c. Land Use Objectives d. Product Summary e. Architectural Distinctions Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 21 f. Townhome and Home Plans g. Estimated Phasing h. Applicant Information i. Supplemental Information I. Certificate of Survey J. Plans, Including: a. PUD Development Stage Plan b. Existing Conditions c. Preliminary Plat d. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan e. Preliminary Utility Plan f. Preliminary Grading Plan g. Preliminary Erosion Control Plan h. Preliminary Signage, Lighting & Mailbox Plan i. Preliminary Landscaping Plan j. Typical Foundation Planting Plan K. Phasing Plan L. Geotechnical Report M. Stormwater Management Plan N. Infrastructure Extension Plan, South O. Park Dedication Exhibit P. Park Dedication Research Q. Wetland Delineation Memo & Notice of Decision R. Traffic Study S. Draft HOA Documents T. City Engineer’s Letter and Plan and Traffic Memo Comments dated December 23, 2024 U. Fire Marshal’s Letter, dated December 31, 2024 V. 2008 Hunters Crossing Preliminary Plat W. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, Excerpt X. 2023 Housing Needs & Demand Report, Excerpt Y. Citizen Petition, Submitted January 7, 2025 Z. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 22 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval REVISED – FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Meadowbrook Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD 155500231200 Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD requiring resolution prior to Effective Date of Rezoning to PUD: 1. Verification that the building and design proposals for the Single Family detached units and lots will meet the following standards: a. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. b. Minimum building sizes of 1,050 finished square feet and a minimum of 1,585 finishable square feet, with the exception of not more than 25% of the detached single-family lots at 1,355 square feet of finishable square foot home plans. c. Garage square footage shall be a minimum of 476 square feet. d. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. e. A maximum of 30% of all single-family units may meet less than a 10% brick or stone requirement when a combination of board and batten, corbels, shakes, garage windows or other façade features exceed 20% of the front façade. f. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street no less than 40% of the width of the structure, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. g. Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. h. Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. i. Establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two-car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line/curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 23 2. Verification that the building and design proposals for attached Single Family units and lots will meet the standards identified in this report, specifically: a. Reduce visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one- fourth and replace with additional green space and tree planting. b. Update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs (as opposed to perennials) in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. c. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. d. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. 3. Update landscape plans showing tree planting locations for the trees in the townhouse portion of the project and verification of tree planting for all areas per code requirements. 4. Update landscaping plans showing additional clusters of shrub plantings and seating areas in the outlots comprising the development’s stormwater ponding areas. 5. Provide written confirmation of allowable use for a non-motorized bicycle park by the powerline easement holder. Land dedication for park is contingent on this requirement. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated December 23, 2024, including the comments of January 2, 2025. 7. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December 31, 2024, and comments dated January 2, 2025. 8. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. Other Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD: 10. Compliance with comments from the Wright County Highway Engineer’s Office and any of the Wright County Surveyor. 11. The submitted Homeowner’s Association Documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of comment. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/04/2025 24 12. Execution and recording of a development contract for the plat, incorporating the terms and conditions for development, including fees and escrows. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MEADOWBROOK WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval, among other concurrent applications, for a parcel of currently undeveloped land; and WHEREAS, the proposed PUD would incorporate development opportunity for mixed residential uses as an allowed use in the proposed Meadowbrook Planned Unit Development zoning district; and WHEREAS, the PUD provides for a variety of residential units styles, including single family detached and attached unit, up to 182 total residential units; and WHEREAS, the PUD incorporates a series of development standards that the applicant will meet with the submitted, or supplemental, plans and documents; and WHEREAS, the subject property will be developed under the requirements of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which designate the land use for the property Low Density Residential uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat shows the development parcel, upon which the existing and proposed buildings will be located, as well as other improvements such as streets, utilities, parkland; and WHEREAS, the proposed development will consist of an overall residential density of approximately 4 units per acre, within the Comprehensive Plan’s target range of 3-6 units per acre; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the Development Stage PUD pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies; and CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 7th, 2025 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution, and make the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. 2. The proposed uses will be consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The proposed plat accommodates additional public and private improvements, including pedestrian facilities, utilities, and stormwater controls that ensure the project will continue to be consistent with the City’s long-term public service infrastructure. 5. The proposed plat accommodates reasonable extensions of development and infrastructure to serve other undeveloped property in the area. 6. The proposed access and development details, as supplemented in further submissions, meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations. 7. As a property development plan that is generally consistent with the previously approved plat and land use, the proposed plat is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding residential properties. 8. Approval of the plat will not result in the need for additional road or utility infrastructure other than that being provided by and for the proposed use, and should not otherwise negatively impact the health or safety of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota recommends to the City Council that the proposed Development Stage PUD for Meadowbrook be approved, subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report, as follows: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-03 Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD requiring resolution prior to Effective Date of Rezoning to PUD: 1. Verification that the building and design proposals for the Single Family detached units and lots will meet the following standards: a. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. b. Minimum building sizes of 1,000 finished square feet, and a minimum of 1,700 square feet of finishable area. c. Garage square footage of at least 480 square feet. d. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. e. Brick/Stone on front façade equal to at least 15% of all front-facing surfaces; or a minimum of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. f. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street no less than 40% of the width of the structure. g. Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. h. Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. i. Establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two-car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line/curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD. j. Provide an anti-monotony plan to further support the PUD flexibility requested. 2. Verification that the building and design proposals for attached Single Family units and lots will meet the standards identified in this report, specifically: a. Reduce visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one- fourth and replace with additional green space and tree planting. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-03 b. Update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs (as opposed to perennials) in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. c. Modification of the garage designs to increase interior widths by at least one foot, or more, to better accommodate parking and access to vehicles. d. Provide detail on building materials for the units, with LP Smartside or fiber- cement board (such as Hardie) required; in the alternative brick/Stone on front façade equal to at least 15% of all front-facing surfaces; or a minimum of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. 3. Update landscape plans showing tree planting locations for the trees in the townhouse portion of the project and verification of tree planting for all areas per code requirements. 4. Update landscaping plans showing additional clusters of shrub plantings and seating areas in the outlots comprising the development’s stormwater ponding areas. 5. Provide written confirmation of allowable use for a non-motorized bicycle park by the powerline easement holder. Land dedication for park is contingent on this requirement. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated December 23, 2024, including the comments of January 2, 2025. 7. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December 31, 2024, and comments dated January 2, 2025. 8. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. Other Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD: 10. Compliance with comments from the Wright County Highway Engineer’s Office and any of the Wright County Surveyor. 11. The submitted Homeowner’s Association Documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of comment. 12. Execution and recording of a development contract for the plat, incorporating the terms and conditions for development, including fees and escrows. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-03 ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 2025 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AMENDING SECTION 153.047 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CREATING THE MEADOWBROOK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO MEADOWBROOK PUD DISTRICT WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Planned Unit Development for a mixed residential project, consisting of 182 residential units, to be platted pursuant to the concurrent request for the Meadowbrook Addition plat; and WHEREAS, the proposed Meadowbrook PUD District would create the uses and standards applicable to all development in the Meadowbrook plat, to consist of a series of public and private streets serving residential units and lot as designated on the approved Preliminary Plat subject to the Meadowbrook Planned Unit Development zoning district; and WHEREAS, the site is concurrently subject to requests for a preliminary plat for the proposed project, and a Development Stage PUD approval for Meadowbrook; and WHEREAS, the proposed PUD and its associated plat creates a dedication for public easements, and adequate right of way related to public streets along with drainage and utilities which will serve various phases of the PUD; and WHEREAS, the subject parcels will be consistent with requirements of the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements under the adopted Meadowbrook PUD District standards, as well as other applicable standards of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the subject property will be developed under the requirements of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which designate the land use for the property as Low Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies; and CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-04 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 7th, 2025 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution, and make the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed Zoning District is required to address the existing use, and provide the potential for development consistent with the intent and purpose of the plans, goals, and policies of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan related to the Low Density Residential land use category. 2. The proposed uses will be consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, provided the development is adequately served by existing roadways. 3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The proposed PUD District and the associated development plans accommodate additional public and private improvements, including streets, utilities, and stormwater controls that ensure the project will continue to be consistent with the City’s long-term public service infrastructure. 5. The proposed PUD does not interfere with reasonable extensions of development and infrastructure to serve other undeveloped property in the area. 6. As a property which has been vacant for many years, but which has been anticipated to be developed for Low and Medium Density Residential uses, the proposed PUD is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding properties or values. 7. Approval of the PUD will not result in the need for additional road or utility infrastructure other than that being provided by and for the proposed use, and should not otherwise negatively impact the health or safety of the community. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-04 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance creating the Meadowbrook PUD District, and rezoning the area being platted as the Meadowbrook PUD District, be approved subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report, as follows: Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD requiring resolution prior to Effective Date of Rezoning to PUD: 1. Verification that the building and design proposals for the Single Family detached units and lots will meet the following standards: a. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. b. Minimum building sizes of 1,050 finished square feet and a minimum of 1,585 finishable square feet, with the exception of not more than 25% of the detached single-family lots at 1,355 square feet of finishable square foot home plans. c. Garage square footage shall be a minimum of 476 square feet. d. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. e. A maximum of 30% of all single-family units may meet less than a 10% brick or stone requirement when a combination of board and batten, corbels, shakes, garage windows or other façade features exceed 20% of the front façade. f. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street no less than 40% of the width of the structure, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. g. Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. h. Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. i. Establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two-car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line/curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-04 2. Verification that the building and design proposals for attached Single Family units and lots will meet the standards identified in this report, specifically: a. Reduce visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one- fourth and replace with additional green space and tree planting. b. Update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs (as opposed to perennials) in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. c. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. d. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. 3. Update landscape plans showing tree planting locations for the trees in the townhouse portion of the project and verification of tree planting for all areas per code requirements. 4. Update landscaping plans showing additional clusters of shrub plantings and seating areas in the outlots comprising the development’s stormwater ponding areas. 5. Provide written confirmation of allowable use for a non-motorized bicycle park by the powerline easement holder. Land dedication for park is contingent on this requirement. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated December 23, 2024, including the comments of January 2, 2025. 7. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December 31, 2024, and comments dated January 2, 2025. 8. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. Other Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD: 10. Compliance with comments from the Wright County Highway Engineer’s Office and any of the Wright County Surveyor. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-04 11. The submitted Homeowner’s Association Documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of comment. 12. Execution and recording of a development contract for the plat, incorporating the terms and conditions for development, including fees and escrows. ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 2025 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEADOWBROOK ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a preliminary plat of a parcel of currently undeveloped land; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat would incorporate development opportunity for mixed residential land uses as an allowed use in the proposed Meadowbrook Planned Unit Development zoning district; and WHEREAS, the plat creates a series of residential development parcels, dedication of public easements and streets, and utilizes existing right of way related to public streets along with drainage and utilities; and WHEREAS, the platted parcels will be consistent with requirements of the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements under the appropriate PUD standards; and WHEREAS, the subject property will be developed under the requirements of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which designate the land use for the property as Low Density Residential uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat shows a variety of residential lots, including lots for both single family detached and attached housing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the plat pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 7th, 2025 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution, and make the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. 2. The proposed uses will be consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The proposed plat accommodates additional public and private improvements, including pedestrian facilities, utilities, and stormwater controls that ensure the project will continue to be consistent with the City’s long-term public service infrastructure. 5. The proposed plat accommodates reasonable extensions of development and infrastructure to serve other undeveloped property in the area. 6. The proposed access and development details, as supplemented in further submissions, meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations. 7. As a property with development consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the previously approved plat for the site, the proposed plat is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding residential properties. 8. Approval of the plat will not result in the need for additional road or utility infrastructure other than that being provided by and for the proposed use, and should not otherwise negatively impact the health or safety of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed Preliminary Plat for the Meadowbrook Addition be approved, subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report, as follows: Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD requiring resolution prior to Effective Date of Rezoning to PUD: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-05 1. Verification that the building and design proposals for the Single Family detached units and lots will meet the following standards: a. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. b. Minimum building sizes of 1,050 finished square feet and a minimum of 1,585 finishable square feet, with the exception of not more than 25% of the detached single-family lots at 1,355 square feet of finishable square foot home plans. c. Garage square footage shall be a minimum of 476 square feet. d. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. e. A maximum of 30% of all single-family units may meet less than a 10% brick or stone requirement when a combination of board and batten, corbels, shakes, garage windows or other façade features exceed 20% of the front façade. f. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street no less than 40% of the width of the structure, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. g. Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. h. Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. i. Establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two-car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line/curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD. 2. Verification that the building and design proposals for attached Single Family units and lots will meet the standards identified in this report, specifically: a. Reduce visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one- fourth and replace with additional green space and tree planting. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-05 b. Update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs (as opposed to perennials) in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. c. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. d. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. 3. Update landscape plans showing tree planting locations for the trees in the townhouse portion of the project and verification of tree planting for all areas per code requirements. 4. Update landscaping plans showing additional clusters of shrub plantings and seating areas in the outlots comprising the development’s stormwater ponding areas. 5. Provide written confirmation of allowable use for a non-motorized bicycle park by the powerline easement holder. Land dedication for park is contingent on this requirement. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated December 23, 2024, including the comments of January 2, 2025. 7. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December 31, 2024, and comments dated January 2, 2025. 8. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. Other Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD: 10. Compliance with comments from the Wright County Highway Engineer’s Office and any of the Wright County Surveyor. 11. The submitted Homeowner’s Association Documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of comment. 12. Execution and recording of a development contract for the plat, incorporating the terms and conditions for development, including fees and escrows. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-05 ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 2025 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director ORDINANCE NO. ___ 1 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV, § 153.047 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING THE MEADOWBROOK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND REZONING THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO MEADOWBROOK PUD: PLAT OF MEADOWBROOK ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section § 153.047, PUD Districts, is hereby amended to add the following: (X) Meadowbrook PUD District (1) Purpose. The purpose of the Broadway Plaza PUD District is to provide for the development of certain real estate subject to the Meadowbrook Planned Unit Development District for mixed residential land uses. (2) Phased Development. The Meadowbrook PUD District will be developed in phases, pursuant to the approved phasing plans. Subsequent phases, although plat names may change, shall continue to be zoned and regulated under the Meadowbrook PUD district, as may be amended. (3) Permitted Principal Uses. Permitted principal uses in the Meadowbrook PUD District shall be single family detached uses on all lots as shown in the Meadowbrook Preliminary Plat dated _________, and attached townhouse residential on all lots as shown in the Meadowbrook Preliminary Plat dated ________, subject to the approved Final Stage PUD Development Plans dated _____________, and development agreement dated ___________, and subject to the conditions of approval imposed by City Council Resolution Nos. _____, and as may be further amended. Each individual use is limited to the location and building identified on the Final PUD Development Plans. No other principal use shall be allowed in the Meadowbrook PUD District, with the exception that public uses on public property shall not be subject to this limitation. The introduction of any other use or change in ORDINANCE NO. ___ 2 density shall be reviewed under the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 153.028(O)(9)(b) – Planned Unit Developments for Development Stage PUD. (4) Accessory Uses. Allowed Accessory Uses in the Meadowbrook PUD District shall be those as allowed in the T-N, Traditional Neighborhood zoning district for any lot used for single family residential use, or as allowed in the R-3, Medium Density Residential zoning district for any parcel used for attached housing. No other accessory uses shall be permitted in the Meadowbrook PUD District, nor shall any outdoor storage or display be allowed, other than as specifically identified on the Final Stage PUD Development Plans. (5) District performance standards. Performance standards for the development of any lot in the Broadway Plaza PUD District shall adhere to the approved Final Stage PUD plans, City Council Resolution Nos. ______________, and development agreement dated _________. (6) The specific flexibility and conditions of the Meadowbrook PUD District shall be as follows: a. Single Family detached, or single family attached, as shown on the approved Development Stage PUD plans, shall be subject to the modified building locations and setbacks and shown on said plans. b. The PUD provides flexibility from building spacing and setback requirements. c. The PUD provides flexibility from the standard requirement for public streets by allowing private streets in the areas serving attached housing. d. The PUD provides flexibility from the requirement for sidewalks along all streets by waiving such requirement along the private streets in the plat. e. Parking for the attached housing areas shall be as provided per the approved plans and located throughout the attached housing development areas. f. The Final Stage PUD architectural plans for the PUD are required to meet the standards, including building materials, as set forth in the Conditions of Approval for the Development Stage PUD, including those below and which are incorporated into the City Council Resolution Nos. ____________: 1. The building and design proposals for the Single Family detached units and lots will meet: ORDINANCE NO. ___ 3 i. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. ii. Minimum building sizes of 1,050 finished square feet and a minimum of 1,585 finishable square feet, with the exception of not more than 25% of the detached single- family lots at 1,355 square feet of finishable square foot home plans. iii. Garage square footage shall be a minimum of 476 square feet. iv. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. v. A maximum of 30% of all single-family units may meet less than a 10% brick or stone requirement when a combination of board and batten, corbels, shakes, garage windows or other façade features exceed 20% of the front façade. vi. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street no less than 40% of the width of the structure, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. vii. Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. viii. Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. ix. Establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two- car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line/curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD. 2. Building and design proposals for attached Single Family units and lots will meet the standards identified in this report, specifically: ORDINANCE NO. ___ 4 i. Reduce visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one-fourth and replace with additional green space and tree planting. ii. Update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs (as opposed to perennials) in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. iii. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. iv. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. g. Landscaping shall be as installed and maintained per approved Final Stage PUD Development Plans, or as administratively approved per Monticello City Code. h. The location and widths of internal lot line drainage and utility easements are as per the approved plat of Meadowbrook Addition or its successor plats. I. An executed and recordable easement and stormwater maintenance agreement for the District shall be recorded with the final plat in a form approved by the City. J. An executed and recorded Homeowner’s Association document subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney shall be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of comment. K. A development contract for the plat, incorporating the terms and conditions for development, including fees and escrows shall be executed and recorded. (7) In such case where any proposed improvement is not addressed by the Final Stage PUD, then the applicant shall seek a PUD Amendment per the processes of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and as directed by the Community Development Department. (8) Where there are any conflicts in the allowed uses or required performance standards between the Meadowbrook PUD District and any other applicable zoning regulations, the requirements of the ORDINANCE NO. ___ 5 Meadowbrook PUD District and its associated plans shall prevail. (9) Amendments. Where changes to the PUD are proposed in the manner of use, density, site plan, development layout, building size, mass, or coverage, or any other change, the proposer shall apply for an amendment to the PUD under the terms of § 153.028(O)(10). The city may require that substantial changes in overall use of the PUD property be processed as a new project, including a zoning district amendment. Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mark the official zoning map to reflect this ordinance. The map shall not be republished at this time. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title XV, Zoning Ordinance, and to renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this ____ day of _________, 2025. __________________________________ Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Rachael Leonard, City Administrator AYES: NAYS: Request for Consideration for Rezoning, Dev. Stage PUD & Preliminary Plat Legal: Lengthy-contact City Hall PID: 155500231200 Created by: City of Monticello 483 ft Supplemental Items to the Preliminary Plat, Rezone, and PUD Development Stage Application Checklist Statement of the Proposed Use of the Property • JPB Land, LLC, is proposing a single family and townhome neighborhood on 54.5 acres east of Edmonson Avenue NE consisting of 109 single family lots and 73 townhome lots divided as follows: o 73 townhome lots o 41 fifty-two foot (52’) wide lots o 68 sixty-two foot (62’) wide lots o Total of 182 lots Zoning Change Contemplated • Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone requested o Areas of PUD Flexibility Required Lot Size • Areas range from 6,122 sf (Block 23, Lot 5) to 32,374 sf (Block 2, Lot 1) • Minimum lot width of 52’ R-1 Setbacks • 6’ side yard • 25’ rear yard • 25’ front yard Garage size • Townhome garages measure 18’ by 22’ 6” and total 420 square feet (garage floor square footage) o Exhibits are provided on pages 9 and 10 of presentation/narrative PDF. • All single-family homes comply with 450 garage floor square footage requirement. o 11 of the 109 single family lots are proposed to have homes with 2-stall garages; the remainder will feature 3-stall garages and meet/exceed 550 garage floor square footage. Building Materials • Our facades are varied, and market-tested. Many of them incorporate brick as an accent, but not all of them do. • Buyers have the choice of upgrading their standard vinyl siding to LP siding. The mission of our company is to build homes at an affordable price. That said, we do what we can to ensure that the entry-level price is affordable while also offering upgrades for our buyers. Building Standards • The distance from the front porch to the garage on the Oxford II Villa measures 7’ 6”. • Many of our homes offer less than 2,000 square feet of “finishable” floor area, including: the Birchwood and Hazelwood townhomes (1709 sf), and the following Villas: Oxford II, Lakewood, Madison, and Augusta (see p. 6 of presentation/narrative for exact square footage). Private Restrictions and Covenants are proposed for the entire neighborhood. • A Homeowner’s Association in compliance with 515b Statute for CIC communities is proposed for the townhome lots. The HOA includes contracted maintenance for snow removal and mowing, as well as insurance and building maintenance. • Our attorney is drafting the HOA docs; JPB will submit to City upon receipt. Project Narrative • Provided in presentation format, in a separate PDF. Meadowbrook, Monticello Monotony Code “X” Home cannot be the same elevation plan type or color scheme as Subject Home. *You can have the same floor plan next to the subject home as long as the exterior elevation is different. THE BROOKVIEW Elevation A Elevation B Elevation C STANDARD EXTERIOR FEATURES (not included in calculation above) • Fiberglass front entry door • Raised panel garage door • Built out gables • Coach lamps at garage door • Aluminum soffit, fascia, and gutters with complimentary siding color packages including premium color upgrades • LP Smartside on front porch columns • Transom or sidelight at front entry door • Built outs, dentils, and brackets Vinyl Lap Vinyl Board & Batten Vinyl Shakes Vinyl Total LP Trim Stone Total Stone % Stone + BB/Shakes+LP% A 359.46 92.58 0 452.04 70.12 13.42 538.58 2.51% 32.88% B 270.85 0 183.87 454.72 76.16 29.42 560.3 5.25% 51.66% C 187.22 122.18 85.96 395.36 73.15 59.41 527.92 11.25% 64.54% CONSUMER PRICING* Monthly PMT Total A Baseline B + $50 + $7,500 C + $100 + $15,000 *This may seem insignificant to some, but when you’re a first-time homebuyer it can mean the difference between affording and not affording a home. PROPOSED ENHANCEMENTS The following exterior enhancements are proposed to be added to all units with less than 10 percent stone: Windows on garage doors Stone on third garage stall 40% Livable Space • Two non-compliant villas: Oxford II (3-car) 33%, and Augusta (3-car) 37.5%. o These are our most affordable villa products for the senior buyer that may have a fixed income or living on social security. Every dollar matters. o Elevations for both villas are provided below. The Oxford II has a single elevation, and the Augusta has three (3). Given the front porch on Augusta Elevations B and C, Elevation A is the only concern. o Exterior enhancements intended to offset garage-dominance at streetscape are proposed in the table below. o Scope Oxford II is planned for six (6) lots- Block 9, Lots 1-6. Augusta is planned to be offered on 22 lots, or 20% of lots. We are open to limiting the number of A elevations to one-third of the Augustas, or 7 of 109 (6%) Oxford II. Augusta, Elevation A. Augusta, Elevation B. Augusta, Elevation C. Garage-Forward House Plans (<6 feet from the porch to the garage) • Non-Compliant Plans o Split/multi-level: Washington, Weston and Crestview- 10’; Maplewood 16’ o Villa: Oxford II- 7.5’ o New plans do not comply: Hillcrest, Silvercreek, and Stoneybrook 16’ • Scope o Split/multi-level homes are planned for forty-seven (47) lots. We propose to limit the Maplewood, which is the least compliant, to 9 lots, or 8% of the 109 lots. o Oxford II Villa is planned for only six (6) lots, or 5.5% of the 109 lots. o New plans are planned to abut both the transmission lines and the townhomes, totaling 17 lots, or 16% of the 109 lots. Note that due to their location, these lots are the most difficult to sell. These are the most cost- effective plans to build. The combination of these factors gives the consumer the lowest possible price. • Elevations for these noncompliant plans are provided below. • Exterior enhancements intended to offset garage-dominance at streetscape and create usable front yard space are proposed in the tables below. Washington, Elevation A. Washington, Elevation B. Weston, Elevation A. Weston, Elevation B. Weston, Elevation C. Crestview, Elevation A. Crestview, Elevation B. Crestview, Elevation C. Maplewood, Elevation A. Maplewood, Elevation B. Maplewood, Elevation C. Oxford II. Hillcrest, Elevation B. Note: This is the only rendering that we have for the new models. What is proposed for this elevation, below, is proposed to repeat on the remaining elevations including for the Stoneybrook and Silvercreek. EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval REVISED – FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Meadowbrook Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD 155500231200 Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD requiring resolution prior to Effective Date of Rezoning to PUD: 1. Verification that the building and design proposals for the Single Family detached units and lots will meet the following standards: a. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. b. Minimum building sizes of 1.050 finished square feet and a minimum of 1,585 finishable square feet, with the exception of not more than 25% of the detached single-family lots at 1,355 square feet of finishable square foot home plans. c. Garage square footage shall be a minimum of 476 square feet. d. Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. e. A maximum of 30% of all single-family units may meet less than a 10% brick or stone requirement when a combination of board and batten, corbels, shakes, garage windows or other façade features exceed 20% of the front façade. Front facades shall consist of a minimum of 50% of a combination of stone, board and batten, LP siding, and shakes. f. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street no less than 40% of the width of the structure, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. g. Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features.landscaping and/or architectural details which mitigate the garage-dominant appearance of the home at the right of way. h. Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. i. Establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two-car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line/curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD. 2. Verification that the building and design proposals for attached Single Family units and lots will meet the standards identified in this report, specifically: a. Reduce visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one-fourth and replace with additional green space and tree planting. b. Update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs (as opposed to perennials) in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. c. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. d. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. 3. Update landscape plans showing tree planting locations for the trees in the townhouse portion of the project and verification of tree planting for all areas per code requirements. 4. Update landscaping plans showing additional clusters of shrub plantings and seating areas in the outlots comprising the development’s stormwater ponding areas. 5. Provide written confirmation of allowable use for a non-motorized bicycle park by the powerline easement holder. Land dedication for park is contingent on this requirement. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated December 23, 2024, including the comments of January 2, 2025. 7. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December 31, 2024, and comments dated January 2, 2025. 8. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. Other Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD: 10. Compliance with comments from the Wright County Highway Engineer’s Office and any of the Wright County Surveyor. 11. The submitted Homeowner’s Association Documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of comment. Execution and recording of a development contract for the plat, incorporating the terms and conditions EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval REVISED – FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Meadowbrook Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD 155500231200 Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD requiring resolution prior to Effective Date of Rezoning to PUD: 1.Verification that the building and design proposals for the Single Family detached units and lots will meet the following standards: a.25 foot front setbacks, with 6 foot side yards and 20 foot usable rear yards. b.Minimum building sizes of 1.050 finished square feet and a minimum of 1,585 finishable square feet, with the exception of not more than 25% of the detached single-family lots at 1,355 square feet of finishable square foot home plans. c.Garage square footage shall be a minimum of 476 square feet. d.Roof pitches of at least 5:12, with modifications for gables or shed roof ornamentation. e.A maximum of 30% of all single-family units may meet less than a 10% brick or stone requirement when a combination of board and batten, corbels, shakes, garage windows or other façade features exceed 20% of the front façade. Front facades shall consist of a minimum of 50% of a combination of stone, board and batten, LP siding, and shakes. f.Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street no less than 40% of the width of the structure, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features. g.Front entry doors no greater than 6 feet farther back from the garage doors, or in the alternative, the addition of usable front porches or expanded front entry patios or entry features.landscaping and/or architectural details which mitigate the garage-dominant appearance of the home at the right of way. h.Additional large trees in the front yards or other open space areas of the proposed lots to make a more immediate impact on the streetscape. i.Establish maximum driveway widths of 20’ for the two-car garage lots overall, and 20’ at the curb line/curb cut line for three-car garage lots as part of the PUD. Applicants Proposal 2. Verification that the building and design proposals for attached Single Family units and lots will meet the standards identified in this report, specifically: a. Reduce visitor parking clusters in the townhouse area by approximately one-fourth and replace with additional green space and tree planting. b. Update landscaping plans showing a much greater proportion of shrubs (as opposed to perennials) in the shrub planting base for the townhouses. c. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. d. Townhome units shall meet a requirement of 10% brick/stone in combination with board and batten, corbels, shakes or other façade features exceeding 20% of the front façade. 3. Update landscape plans showing tree planting locations for the trees in the townhouse portion of the project and verification of tree planting for all areas per code requirements. 4. Update landscaping plans showing additional clusters of shrub plantings and seating areas in the outlots comprising the development’s stormwater ponding areas. 5. Provide written confirmation of allowable use for a non-motorized bicycle park by the powerline easement holder. Land dedication for park is contingent on this requirement. 6. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated December 23, 2024, including the comments of January 2, 2025. 7. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December 31, 2024, and comments dated January 2, 2025. 8. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. Other Conditions of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD: 10. Compliance with comments from the Wright County Highway Engineer’s Office and any of the Wright County Surveyor. 11. The submitted Homeowner’s Association Documents are subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded upon satisfaction of comment. Applicants Proposal Execution and recording of a development contract for the plat, incorporating the terms and conditions Applicants Proposal www.ci.monticello.mn.us OFFICE: 763-295-2711 FAX: 763-295-4404 505 Walnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 To: Planning Commission and City Council From: Engineering Staff Date: January 23, 2025 Subject: Meadowbrook Plat-87th Street Connection Engineering Recommendation for 87th Street Connection The City Engineering staff recommends the connection of 87th Street between the proposed Meadowbrook plat and the existing Hunters Crossing plat, as originally planned in the Hunters Crossing development. This connection will enhance access and circulation for both daily traffic and emergency vehicles in the neighborhoods. Key Benefits: 1. Improved Emergency Response: The connection will reduce the distance to the fire station by approximately ½ mile from the intersection of 87th and Eisele, facilitating quicker emergency response times. 2. Enhanced Traffic Flow: Existing residents in Hunters Crossing will benefit from a ½ mile reduction in travel distance to the intersection of School and Edmonson, improving overall traffic efficiency. 3. Traffic Distribution: Eliminating the 87th Street connection would increase traffic congestion at the remaining access points, negatively impacting traffic flow. 4. Infrastructure Integration: The connection will enable the integration of sanitary sewer and watermain systems between the two plats, ensuring efficient utility services. 5. Avoiding Disruption: Without this connection, a temporary cul-de-sac would need to be relocated within the Hunters Crossing plat, affecting two existing homes to construct a permanent cul-de-sac. By implementing the 87th Street connection, we can ensure better infrastructure, improved emergency response, and enhanced traffic management for both neighborhoods. JPB LAND L L C . Meadowbrook M O N T I C E L L O R E Z O N E , P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T , D E V E L O P M E N T S T A G E P U D D E C E M B E R 9 , 2 0 2 4 J P B L a n d , L L C | J P B r o o k s B u i l d e r s , l o c a l l y o w n e d , w i l l b e t h e d e v e l o p e r a n d h o m e b u i l d e r e n s u r i n g t h e v i s i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t f r o m s t a r t t o f i n i s h O U R M I S S I O N I S S I M P L E : T O B U I L D Q U A L I T Y H O M E S A T A N A F F O R D A B L E P R I C E J P B r o o k s h a s b e e n i n b u s i n e s s s i n c e 2 0 1 3 O v e r 8 5 0 h o m e s c o n s t r u c t e d i n 4 0 + c o m m u n i t i e s s i n c e 2 0 1 3 C u r r e n t l y b u i l d i n g i n 1 8 l o c a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t t h e m e t r o A v e r a g e n u m b e r o f h o m e s c l o s i n g s 2 0 2 2 -2 0 2 3 = 1 5 0 h o m e s a n n u a l l y R a n k e d T o p 2 5 B u i l d e r i n r e v e n u e s f o r 2 0 2 3 i n t h e T w i n C i t i e s m a r k e t M i n n e s o t a G r e e n P a t h C e r t i f i e d B u i l d e r A B O U T T H E B U I L D E R / D E V E L O P E R 1 A P P R O V A L R A T I O N A L E F O R P U D — P U B L I C B E N E F I T S — O U R P L A N O u r p l a n m e e t s m a n y o f t h e s t a t e d g o a l s o f t h e 2 0 4 0 C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n W e o f f e r a l i f e -c y c l e c o m m u n i t y w i t h a v a r i e t y o f l o t t y p e s a n d s i z e s a n d h o m e s t y l e s , p r o v i d i n g c h o i c e s t o s e r v e a l l d e m o g r a p h i c s o f r e s i d e n t s D e d i c a t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 a c r e s o f l a n d f o r e x p a n d e d E d m o n s o n A v e R O W P r o v i d e s a t r a i l e a s e m e n t a l o n g t h e E d m o n s o n A v e R O W a n d t h r o u g h O u t l o t s B a n d C D e d i c a t e s 1 0 .4 5 a c r e s o f p u b l i c o p e n s p a c e (i n c l u d i n g a 3 .4 6 a c r e p a r k ) P r o v i d e s 3 .4 6 a c r e s o f d e d i c a t e d p u b l i c p a r k s p a c e f o r a “B M X ” p a r k U t i l i z e s e x i s t i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e f o r w a t e r a n d s e w e r t h a t “p a y s i t s o w n w a y ” P r o v i d e s s t r e e t c o n n e c t i v i t y o n a l l f o u r p e r i m e t e r s o f t h e s i t e t o e x i s t i n g a n d /o r p r o p o s e d n e i g h b o r h o o d s P r o v i d e s n e i g h b o r h o o d -w i d e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s p l u s H O A (s n o w + m o w , m a i n t e n a n c e a n d i n s u r a n c e ) f o r t h e t o w n h o m e s l o t s P r o v i d e s s i d e w a l k a n d t r a i l c o n n e c t i v i t y t o e x i s t i n g n e i g h b o r h o o d n e t w o r k a n d a n d p a r k a r e a P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T & D E V E L O P M E N T S T A G E P U D M E A D O W B R O O K , M O N T I C E L L O 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T & D E V E L O P M E N T S T A G E P U D M E A D O W B R O O K , M O N T I C E L L O 3 Gr o s s Si te A r ea : 56.4 5 A cre s E d m on so n A v e R OW : 1 .99 Ac res O p en Spa ce : 1 0 .45 Ac r es B M X P a r k (O ut lo t A ) : 3 .46 Ac r es Ne t De v elo p a b l e Ar e a: 5 4 .4 6 A c r e s Ov e r a l l N et D en si ty : 3.3 4 U nits P er A cr e Prop o s e d T o t a l R e s i d e n t ial Lo ts: 18 2 D A T A To w n ho me s = 73 lots 52' Sing le F a mi ly = 41 lots 62' Sing le F a mi ly = 68 lots T o t al Si ngl e Fa m il y = 1 0 9 l o t s C I T Y O F M O N T I C E L L O 2 0 4 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N 4 L A N D U S E A N D G R O W T H O B J E C T I V E S A C H I E V E D G o a l 1 | G r o w t h a n d C h a n g e , a n d G o a l 2 | C o m p l e t e N e i g h b o r h o o d s A C i t y t h a t p r i o r i t i z e s g r o w t h i n w a r d b y c o n c e n t r a t i n g d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n t h e e x i s t i n g c i t y b o u n d a r i e s a n d g r o w s o r d e v e l o p s i n t o t h e O r d e r l y A n n e x a t i o n A r e a o n l y w h e n d e v e l o p m e n t i s p r o p o s e d o r p l a n n e d c o n t i g u o u s t o c i t y b o u n d a r i e s , s e n s i t i v e o p e n s p a c e l a n d s a r e p r o t e c t e d a n d t h o u g h t f u l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t p a t t e r n , a n d t h e l a n d i s s e r v i c e d b y a p p r o p r i a t e u t i l i t y a n d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s y s t e m s . G o a l 6 | N a t u r a l E n v i r o n m e n t , P a r k s a n d O p e n S p a c e A n o p e n s p a c e “f r a m e ” a r o u n d a n d w o v e n t h r o u g h M o n t i c e l l o , c o m p l e m e n t e d b y t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r , B e r t r a m C h a i n o f L a k e s R e g i o n a l P a r k , o t h e r l o c a l a n d r e g i o n a l p a r k s , t r a i l s a n d r e c r e a t i o n a r e a s w h i c h t o g e t h e r p r o t e c t t h e C i t y ’s n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , l a k e s , w e t l a n d s a n d w o o d l a n d s , a n d p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n , e n h a n c e v i s u a l b e a u t y , a n d s h a p e t h e C i t y ’s c h a r a c t e r . C I T Y O F M O N T I C E L L O 2 0 4 0 C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N 5 K E Y T H E M E S A C H I E V E D 1 . S u s t a i n a b i l i t y P r o v i d e s i n f i l l d e v e l o p m e n t U t i l i z e s t h e l a n d e f f i c i e n t l y P r o v i d e s l i n e a r o p e n s p a c e c o r r i d o r P r o v i d e s t r a i l s a n d s i d e w a l k s f o r p e d e s t r i a n s a n d c y c l i s t s P r e s e r v e s o p e n s p a c e 2 . C o m m u n i t y H e a t h a n d S e n s e o f P l a c e P r o v i d e s a n e w c o m m u n i t y p a r k w i t h i n w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e o f r e s i d e n t s P r e s e r v e s o p e n s p a c e P r o v i d e s a c c e s s t o o t h e r n e i g h b o r h o o d s a n d c o m m e r c i a l a r e a s o f t h e c i t y n e a r b y P r o m o t e s p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i c y c l e u s e o f t r a i l s a n d s i d e w a l k s e n c o u r a g i n g a h e a l t h y l i f e s t y l e f o r r e s i d e n t s A v a r i e t y o f h o u s i n g t y p e s a n d p r i c e p o i n t s p r o v i d e d t o s e r v e a l l d e m o g r a p h i c s o f h o m e p u r c h a s e r s w i t h i n o n e c o m m u n i t y H O U S E P R O D U C T S U M M A R Y 6 7 A R C H I T E C T U R A L D I S T I N C T I O N S F r o n t p o r c h e s w i t h (S m a r t S i d e ) L P p i l l a r s S t o n e b a s e p i l l a r u p g r a d e s V a r y i n g h e i g h t s a n d q u a n t i t i e s f o r s t o n e B u i l t o u t g a b l e s C o a c h l a m p s a t g a r a g e d o o r L P S m a r t S i d e w i n d o w w r a p p i n g (S F o n l y ) T r a n s o m o r s i d e l i g h t w i n d o w s a t f r o n t e n t r y d o o r (S F o n l y ) D i f f e r e n t s i d i n g o p t i o n s i n g a b l e s (B o a r d a n d B a t t e n , S h a k e s , B u i l t O u t s , D e n t i l s , B r a c k e t s ) G a r a g e d o o r i s a n u p g r a d e d s h o r t r a i s e d p a n e l g a r a g e d o o r w i t h g r o o v e s . A l s o a l l o w s f o r w i n d o w s t o b e a d d e d . M u l t i p l e c o l o r s , i n c l u d i n g w o o d g r a i n t o p r o v i d e h i g h e r q u a l i t y l o o k S t o n e a d d r e s s p l a q u e u p g r a d e o p t i o n A l l h o m e s M i n n e s o t a G r e e n P a t h c e r t i f i e d I n c l u d e d f r o n t d o o r i s a n u p g r a d e d f i b e r g l a s s d o o r w i t h a w i d e a r r a y o f c o l o r o p t i o n s a n d w o o d g r a i n o p t i o n s . (M o s t b u i l d e r s d o n 't d o t h e w o o d g r a i n b e c a u s e o f t h e c o s t , w e i n c l u d e s t a n d a r d d u e t o p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k f r o m c u s t o m e r s . S F o n l y ) F u l l t i m e d e s i g n e r o n s t a f f w i t h o v e r 2 5 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e p l a n n i n g o u t e x t e r i o r p a c k a g e s f o r l a r g e , q u a l i t y c o m m u n i t i e s I n h o u s e d e s i g n s t u d i o w h e r e c u s t o m e r s c a n c h o o s e t h e i r s e l e c t i o n s W e a r e i n t e n t i o n a l w i t h a s e l f i m p o s e d a n t i -m o n o t o n y c o d e a b o u t n o t a l l o w i n g t h e s a m e e l e v a t i o n o r c o l o r p a l e t t e n e x t d o o r , o n e i t h e r s i d e , o r d i r e c t l y a c r o s s t h e s t r e e t M a n y o f t h e s e d i s t i n c t i o n s c a n b e f o u n d w h e n v i e w i n g t h e f l o o r p l a n e l e v a t i o n s a n d 3 -D t o u r s o n o u r w e b s i t e a t J P B r o o k s .c o m . A l s o , t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n , c i t y c o u n c i l , a n d s t a f f a r e w e l c o m e t o t o u r a n y o f o u r m o d e l h o m e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e m e t r o - s e e J P B r o o k s .c o m f o r c o m m u n i t y l o c a t i o n s . 8 Birchwood and Hazelwood TOWNHOME LOTS B e d r o o m s : 3 - 4 B a t h r o o m s : 3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 7 0 9 O V E R V I E W Birchwood Floor Plan S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M a i n F l o o r : 7 0 8 s f U p p e r F l o o r : 1 0 0 1 s f G a r a g e : 4 4 6 s f S t o r a g e : 9 0 s f 9 Hazelwood Floor Plan S Q U A R E F O O T A G E M a i n F l o o r : 7 0 8 s f U p p e r F l o o r : 1 0 0 1 s f G a r a g e : 4 4 6 s f S t o r a g e : 1 0 6 s f 1 0 G A R A G E S T O R A G E O P T I O N S 1 1 1 2 The Oxford II V I L L A F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 - 3 B a t h r o o m s : 2 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,5 8 5 - 1 ,7 2 1 O V E R V I E W 52' LOTS - 40' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 1 3 The Augusta V I L L A F L O O R P L A N 52' LOTS - 40' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS B e d r o o m s : 2 B a t h r o o m s : 2 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,3 5 5 - 1 ,4 9 9 O V E R V I E W 1 4 The Madison V I L L A F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 3 B a t h r o o m s : 2 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,5 9 6 - 1 ,7 4 0 O V E R V I E W 52' LOTS - 40' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 1 5 The Lakewood V I L L A F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 - 3 B a t h r o o m s : 2 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,7 9 4 - 1 ,8 3 0 O V E R V I E W 52' LOTS - 40' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 1 6 The Waterford V I L L A F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 - 3 B a t h r o o m s : 2 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,9 4 8 - 2 ,0 6 8 O V E R V I E W 52' LOTS - 40' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 1 7 The Weston S P L I T L E V E L F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 3 - 5 B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 2 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,4 4 0 - 2 ,2 5 1 O V E R V I E W 52' LOTS - 40' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 1 8 The Augusta R A M B L E R F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 - 4 B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,3 5 5 - 2 ,5 3 4 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 1 9 The Madison R A M B L E R F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 3 - 5 B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,5 9 6 - 2 ,9 1 9 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 0 The Lakewood V I L L A F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 - 3 B a t h r o o m s : 2 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,7 9 4 - 1 ,8 3 0 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 1 The Waterford V I L L A F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 - 3 B a t h r o o m s : 2 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,9 4 8 - 2 ,0 6 8 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 2 The Somerset R A M B L E R F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 - 5 B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,8 4 6 - 3 ,0 2 5 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 3 The Brookview T W O S T O R Y F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 4 - 5 B a t h r o o m s : 3 - 4 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 2 ,2 9 5 - 3 ,0 8 2 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 4 The Summit T W O S T O R Y F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 4 - 5 B a t h r o o m s : 3 - 4 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 2 ,5 3 9 - 3 ,4 8 2 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 5 The Oak Ridge S P L I T L E V E L F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 - 4 B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,1 3 8 - 1 ,9 9 4 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 6 The Weston S P L I T L E V E L F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 3 - 5 B a t h r o o m s : 2 - 3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,4 4 0 - 2 ,2 5 1 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 7 The Maplewood M U L T I L E V E L F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 4 B a t h r o o m s : 4 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 2 ,2 8 9 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 8 The Crestview M U L T I L E V E L F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 4 B a t h r o o m s : 4 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 2 ,5 6 2 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 2 9 The Washington M U L T I L E V E L F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 3 -5 B a t h r o o m s : 2 -3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 ,5 9 6 -2 ,9 1 9 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 3 0 The Edgewater R A M B L E R F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 2 -5 B a t h r o o m s : 2 -3 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 1 9 7 2 -3 ,5 5 9 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS 3 1 The Sedona T W O S T O R Y F L O O R P L A N B e d r o o m s : 4 -5 B a t h r o o m s : 4 -5 G a r a g e S t a l l s : 3 S q u a r e F e e t : 3 ,1 6 4 -4 ,4 1 0 O V E R V I E W 62' LOTS - 50' HOUSE PAD - 6' SIDE YARDS E S T I M A T E D P H A S I N G 3 2 P r o p o s e d P h a s i n g P h a s e 1 : 6 0 L o t s — 2 0 2 5 -2 0 2 6 P h a s e 2 : 6 0 L o t s — 2 0 2 7 -2 0 2 8 P h a s e 3 : 6 2 L o t s — 2 0 2 9 -2 0 3 0 J P B L a n d , L L C 's v i s i o n f o r M e a d o w b r o o k i s t o p a r t n e r w i t h t h e C i t y o f M o n t i c e l l o t o c r e a t e a n e i g h b o r h o o d t h a t w i l l b e a t t r a c t i v e t o r e s i d e n t s a n d p r o v i d e m u l t i p l e h o m e s t y l e o p t i o n s f o r b u y e r s . A s s u c h , t h i s P U D w i l l e s t a b l i s h s t a n d a r d s o f e x c e l l e n c e w h i l e a l l o w i n g f l e x i b i l i t y t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e m a r k e t a n d c o n s u m e r p r e f e r e n c e s o v e r t i m e . W e h a v e b u i l t m a n y h o m e s i n M o n t i c e l l o o v e r t h e y e a r s a n d h a v e r e a l l y e n j o y e d b e i n g a g r e a t p a r t n e r w i t h t h e c i t y i n t h e p a s t . W e l o o k f o r w a r d t o w o r k i n g w i t h t h e c i t y o n t h e M e a d o w b r o o k d e v e l o p m e n t a n d p r o v i d i n g w o n d e r f u l h o m e s i t e s f o r t h e r e s i d e n t s o f M o n t i c e l l o f o r y e a r s t o c o m e ! T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . P L A N N E D U N I T D E V E L O P M E N T J P B L a n d , L L C . | J P B r o o k s , I n c . 1 3 7 0 0 R e i m e r D r i v e N o r t h , S u i t e 1 0 0 M a p l e G r o v e , M N 5 5 3 1 1 A r t P l a n t e L u c i n d a S p a n i e r O f f i c e : (7 6 3 ) 2 8 5 -4 7 9 5 O f f i c e : (7 6 3 ) 2 8 5 -4 7 8 9 M o b i l e : (6 1 2 ) 8 0 4 -5 7 4 2 M o b i l e : (6 1 2 ) 9 7 9 -3 9 6 5 D E V E L O P E R / B U I L D E R O t t o A s s o c i a t e s 9 D i v i s i o n S t r e e t W B u f f a l o , M N 5 5 3 1 3 C a r a S c h w a h n O t t o (7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 -4 7 2 7 w w w .o t t o a s s o c i a t e s .c o m E N G I N E E R I N G / S U R V E Y I N G C O N S U L T A N T W E T L A N D C O N S U L T A N T K j o l h a u g E n v i r o n m e n t a l S e r v i c e s C o m p a n y 2 5 0 0 S h a d y w o o d R o a d , S u i t e 1 3 0 O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 3 1 M a r k K j o l h a u g (9 5 2 ) 4 0 1 -8 7 5 7 w w w .k j o l h a u g e n v .c o m 87TH ST. NE C O U N T R Y A V E . PARK DRIVE E D M O N S O N A V E N E 87TH ST NE 89TH ST. NE N Project No. Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, 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 Revised:Checked By: Requested By: Date:Drawn By:Scale: SSOCIATES10-2-24 JPB Land, LLC T.J.B.1"=60'P.E.O. Certificate of Survey and Topographic Survey denotes P.K. nail set Feet 0 60 120 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:_____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 22 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151613121110 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 3 2 1 7 1 20 19 18 17 161514 12 13 10 11 9 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 67 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 6 789101112 3 OUTLOT B 6 5 4 9 8 6 5 234 1234567891011121234 1234 123 654 123 654 123 1 23 4 8 76 5 12 3 65 4 5 1 234 8765 12 34 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 8 76 111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 OUTLOT D OUTLOT D OU T L O T D 23 EDMONSON AVENUE NE 87 T H S T . N E P R O P O S E D R O A D COUNTRY AVE 89 T H S T R E E T N E P A R K DR I V E PRIVATE PR I V A T E R O A D PRIVATE ROAD ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com 12-9-24 PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN MEADOWBROOK JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 181 N N Vicinity Map PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN SET: MEADOWBROOK MONTICELLO, MN Feet 0 100 200 I 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:_________________________ Feet 0 60 120 SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 2 N MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 3 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 22 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151613121110 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 3 2 1 7 1 20 19 18 17 161514 12 13 10 11 9 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 67 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 6 789101112 3 OUTLOT B 6 5 4 9 8 6 5 234 EDMONSON AVENUE NE 87 T H S T . N E P R O P O S E D R O A D COUNTRY AVE 89 T H S T R E E T N E P A R K DR I V E 1234567891011121234 1234 123 654 123 654 123 1 23 4 8 76 5 12 3 65 4 5 1234 8765 12 34 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 8 76 111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 OUTLOT D OUTLOT D OU T L O T D 23 PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY PLAT (OVERVIEW)MEADOWBROOK JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 184 N Feet 0 100 200 Preliminary Plat of MEADOWBROOK I 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:_________________________12-9-24 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 2 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 OUTLOT B 89TH STREET NE PARK DRIVE 8 9 T H S T R E E T N E CO U N T R Y A V E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT DPR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY PLAT (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 185 N Preliminary Plat of MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-24 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 8 7654321 7 8321 7 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 1412 13 10 119 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 654 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED RO A D CO U N T R Y A V E 89TH STREET NE 87TH ST. NE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 OUTLOT D OU T L O T D OUTLOT D 23 PR I V A T E PR I V A T E PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROADPR I V A T E R O A D CO U N T R Y A V E SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com 12-9-24 PRELIMINARY PLAT (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 186 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOK Preliminary Plat of MEADOWBROOK I 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:_________________________ CO U N T R Y A V E . PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N E 89TH ST. NE SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 7 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 87TH ST. NE 87TH ST NE ED M O N S O N A V E N E SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 8 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 2 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 OUTLOT B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT DPR I V A T E RO A D PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E PR I V A T E RO A D89TH STREET NECO U N T R Y A V E PRIVATE ROAD SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 189 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOK 12-9-24 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 8 7654321 7 8321 7 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 1412 13 10 119 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 654 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 OUTLOT D OU T L O T D OUTLOT D 23 ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED RO A D AV E 89TH STREET NE PR I V A T E PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD CO U N T R Y SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 1810 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOK 12-9-24 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OUTLOT B 89TH STREET NE PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 8 9 T H S T R E E T N E CO U N T R Y A V E 1 2 4 5 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 1711 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 12-9-24 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 87 654321 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 1412 13 10 11 9 7 4 3 21 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED RO A D CO U N T R Y 89TH STREET NE 6 8 9 10 11 AV E 87TH ST.NE 7 8321654 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 2 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 OUTLOT D OU T L O T D OUTLOT D 23 PR I V A T E PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 1812 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 12-9-24 (Geotech recommends using onsite soils) 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OUTLOT B 89TH STREET NE PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 8 9 T H S T R E E T N E CO U N T R Y A V E 1 2 4 5 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 1813 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 12-9-24 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 87 654321 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 1412 13 10 11 9 7 4 3 21 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED RO A D CO U N T R Y 89TH STREET NE 6 8 9 10 11 AV E 87TH ST.NE 7 8321654 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 2 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 OUTLOT D OU T L O T D OUTLOT D 23 PR I V A T E PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 1814 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 12-9-24 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 22 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 12 3 4 5 6 78 9 5 6 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151613121110 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 3 2 1 7 1 20 19 18 17 161514 12 13 10 11 9 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 67 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 6 789101112 3 OUTLOT B 6 5 4 9 8 6 5 234 1234567891011121234 1234 123 654 123 654 123 1 23 4 8 76 5 12 3 65 4 5 1 234 8765 12 34 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 8 76 111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 OUTLOT D OUTLOT D OU T L O T D 23 EDMONSON AVENUE NE 87 T H S T . N E P R O P O S E D R O A D COU N T R Y A V E 89 T H S T R E E T N E P A R K DR I V E 8 7 T H S T . N E 89TH STREET NEPRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY SIGNAGE, LIGHTING, & MAILBOX PLANJPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 15 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 100 200 12-9-2418 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 OUTLOT B PARK DRIVE 89 T H S T R E E T N E CO U N T R Y A V E 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 6 1 O P O S E D R O A D RO A D NV (2) BH (3) NV (2) SP (5) AG (1) SS (6) ID (5) NV (3) SU (5) ID (5) SU (5) SU (8) ID (8) SU (7) ID (5) SU (9) QA (3) ID (5) QA (1) CH (1) AG (1) NV (5) AG (1) SU (4) NV (5) SU (3) ID (5) NV (4) SU (3) CH (2) AP (1) SS (4) ID (6) CH (1) ID (5) WP (3) NV (4) SU (5) NV (6) NV (5) ID (5)ID (3)NV (3)NV (3)SU (5) NV (4) NV (7) ID (7) DECIDUOUS TREES LANDSCAPE PLANT LEGEND CH 2.5" CAL.B&B 50'H x 50'WCOMMON HACKBERRY Celtis occidentalis QA 2" CAL.B&B 40'H x 20'WQUAKING ASPEN Populus temuloides EVERGREEN TREES AP 6' HT B&B 50'H x 30'WAUSTRIAN PINE Pinus nigra WP B&B 50'H x 30'WWHITE PINE Pinus strobus SS B&B 25'H x 10'WSWISS STONE ALGONQUIN PILLAR Pinus cembra 'Algonquin Pillar' 6' HT 4' HT NR B&B 20'H x 20'WNORTHERN REDBUD Cercis canadensis 'Northern Strain'2" CAL. 9 5 9 2 7 27 BH B&B 30'H x 20'WBLACK HILLS SPRUCE Picea glauca 6' HT3 AG 2.5" CAL.B&B 50'H x 30'WAUTUMN GOLD GINKGO Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold'8 SHRUBS NV #5 CONT.POT 20'H x 10'W77NANNYBERRY VIBURNUM Viburnum lentago SU #2 CONT.POT 10'H x 15'W54STAGHORN SUMAC Rhus typhina ID #5 CONT.POT 5'H x 7'W80ISANTI DOGWOOD Cornus sericea 'Isanti' SP B&B 40'H x 30'WSCOTCH PINE Pinus sylvestris 6' HT9 -- SY MNDOT SEED MIX 35-241 - MESIC PRAIRIE GENERAL (OR APPROVED ALTERNATE). -- SY MNDOT SEED MIX 25-131 - LOW MAINTENANCE TURF (OR APPROVED ALTERNATE). -- SY MNDOT SEED MIX 33-262 - DRY SWALE/POND (OR APPROVED ALTERNATE). MULCH - --- CY FOUR BOULEVARD TREES REQUIRED PRIOR TO HOME OCCUPANCY 49 UNITS TWO BOULEVARD TREES REQUIRED PRIOR TO HOME OCCUPANCY 19 UNITS 90 UNITS SUBDIVISION TREE REQUIREMENTS TOWNHOME TREE REQUIREMENTS THREE BOULEVARD TREES REQUIRED PRIOR TO TOWN HOME OCCUPANCY24 UNITS TWO BOULEVARD TREES REQUIRED PRIOR TO TOWN HOME OCCUPANCY I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT 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. SIGNATURE:____________________ JOSEPH L. SCHEFFLER PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE Date: License #: PL A N - T yp e SI T E P L A N N I N G & L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N i n f o @ p l a n - t y p e . c o m 55597 06-30-2026 DRAWN BY PROJECT MANAGER LOUIE J + L MEADOWBROOK MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ISSUE LOG Expiration: 12-09-2024 12-09-2024 SUBMITTAL NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N PROTECT MAIN LEADER, REMOVE DEAD & BROKEN BRANCHES STAKE & GUY AS NEEDED 4" DEPTH MULCH, DO NOT PLACE WITHIN 2" OF TRUNK EXPOSE ROOT FLARE, SET AT FINISH GRADE CUT & REMOVE ALL TWINE, BURLAP & WIRE BASKET, PLACE ON UNDISTURBED SOIL SUBGRADE WRAP TREE, FALL INSTALLATION ONLY FINISH GRADE LANDSCAPE NOTES: ·CONTRACTOR TO HAVE ALL UTILITIES ON SITE VERIFIED AND MARKED BEFORE STARTING WORK. ··CONTRACTOR IS LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES ON SITE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REPAIRING/REPLACING DAMAGE. ·CONTRACTOR IS LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGE RELATED TO CONTRACTORS ACTIVITY ON SITE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REPAIRING/REPLACING DAMAGE. ·OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR PLANTING IN ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY. ·COMPLETE WORK PER OWNERS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COORDINATE WORK WITH OTHERS ON SITE. ·PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND BE FREE OF DISEASE AND DAMAGE. ··ALL PLANT MATERIALS TO BE WARRANTIED ONE (1) FULL YEAR FROM THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER, WITH ONE TIME REPLACEMENT. ··WATER AND MAINTAIN ALL PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL ACCEPTED BY OWNER. ·IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOW ON THE PLAN COMPARED TO THE PLANT LEGEND, THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE. ·ALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO RECEIVE 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON PLANS. ··VERIFY TOPSOIL DEPTH AND NOTIFY OWNER OF ANY DEFICIENCY. ··REPLACEMENT TOPSOIL SHOULD BE CLEAN, FREE OF DEBRIS, SHARP OBJECTS, ROCKS AND WEEDS. ··ALL AREAS TO BE LANDSCAPED AND SODDED SHALL BE GRADED SMOOTH AND EVEN. ·SOD TO BE A KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS SEED VARIETY. ··NO GUARANTEE ON SOD EXCEPT SOD THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. ··STAKE SOD ON SLOPES 3:1 AND GREATER. ·PROVIDE BLANKET ON ALL SEEDED AREAS THAT ARE SLOPED. MULCH APPLICATION FOR ALL OTHER SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE HYDROMULCH OR DISCED STRAW DEPENDING ON SEED TYPE. ·INSTALL BLACK VINYL EDGING AROUND ALL PLANTING BEDS AS SHOWN ON PLAN. ·MULCH TO BE FINELY SHREDDED, UNDYED, HARDWOOD ORGANIC MULCH INSTALLED TO 4" DEPTH. ··NO WEED FABRIC BARRIER BENEATH ORGANIC MULCHES. ··TREES SHALL HAVE MULCH PULLED BACK 2" FROM BASE OF TRUNK. ··NO EDGING AROUND TREES OUTSIDE OF SHRUB BEDS. ·ROCK MULCH SHALL BE 1-1/2" DIAMETER WASHED RIVER ROCK INSTALLED TO 3" DEPTH WITH APPROVED WEED FABRIC BARRIER. ·SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVEMENT AREAS AFTER LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION IS COMPLETE AND ACCEPTED BY OWNER, DAILY CLEANING TO BE COMPLETED IF REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. NORTH LANDSCAPE PLAN L101Know what's below. before you dig.Call R N SCARIFY & SPREAD ROOT MASS OVER-EXCAVATE 6" SUBGRADE REMOVE DEAD & BROKEN BRANCHES EXPOSE ROOT FLARE, SET AT FINISH GRADE 4" DEPTH MULCH FINISH GRADE 0 SCALE: 1"=60' 60 120 SEED NOTES: ·SPRING SEEDING TO BE BETWEEN MARCH 15TH - MAY 15TH. ·FALL SEEDING TO BE BETWEEN AUGUST 15TH - OCTOBER 15TH. ··NO SUMMER SEEDING ALLOWED. ·PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ON ALL SIDE SLOPES. 16 OF 18 SHEETS 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 8 7 654321 7 8321 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 12 13 10 11 9 7 4 3 2 1 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 654 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 E D M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED R O A D C O U N T R Y A V E 89TH STREET NE E D M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED R O A D C O U N T R Y A V E 87TH ST. NE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 2 3 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 OUTLOT D O U T L O T D OUTLOT D P R O P O S E D R O A D P R O P O S E D RO A D PROPOSED ROAD PROPOSED ROAD PROPOSED ROAD P R O P O S E D R O A D E D M O N S O N A V E CH (1) NR (3) NV (4) AG (2) ID (3) SS (2) ID (2) NR (1) AP (1) QA (1) NV (2) WP (1) ID (3) WP (1) ID (3) CH (1) NV (2) AG (1) NV (3) CH (1) NV (4) QA (3) ID (5) QA (1) CH (1) NV (5) SU (4) NV (5) NR (2) CH (1) NR (1) WP (1) NV (4) NR (2) AG (1) SS (2) CH (1) SS (3) SS (4) SP (2) SS (4) CH (1) ID (6) WP (1) SP (2) ID (4) SS (2) AG (1) ID (7) DECIDUOUS TREES LANDSCAPE PLANT LEGEND CH 2.5" CAL.B&B 50'H x 50'WCOMMON HACKBERRY Celtis occidentalis QA 2" CAL.B&B 40'H x 20'WQUAKING ASPEN Populus temuloides EVERGREEN TREES AP 6' HT B&B 50'H x 30'WAUSTRIAN PINE Pinus nigra WP B&B 50'H x 30'WWHITE PINE Pinus strobus SS B&B 25'H x 10'WSWISS STONE ALGONQUIN PILLAR Pinus cembra 'Algonquin Pillar' 6' HT 4' HT NR B&B 20'H x 20'WNORTHERN REDBUD Cercis canadensis 'Northern Strain'2" CAL. 10 5 9 2 7 27 BH B&B 30'H x 20'WBLACK HILLS SPRUCE Picea glauca 6' HT3 AG 2.5" CAL.B&B 50'H x 30'WAUTUMN GOLD GINKGO Ginkgo biloba 'Autumn Gold'8 SHRUBS NV #5 CONT.POT 20'H x 10'W77NANNYBERRY VIBURNUM Viburnum lentago SU #2 CONT.POT 10'H x 15'W54STAGHORN SUMAC Rhus typhina ID #5 CONT.POT 5'H x 7'W80ISANTI DOGWOOD Cornus sericea 'Isanti' SP B&B 40'H x 30'WSCOTCH PINE Pinus sylvestris 6' HT9 -- SY MNDOT SEED MIX 35-241 - MESIC PRAIRIE GENERAL (OR APPROVED ALTERNATE). -- SY MNDOT SEED MIX 25-131 - LOW MAINTENANCE TURF (OR APPROVED ALTERNATE). -- SY MNDOT SEED MIX 33-262 - DRY SWALE/POND (OR APPROVED ALTERNATE). MULCH - --- CY FOUR BOULEVARD TREES REQUIRED PRIOR TO HOME OCCUPANCY 49 UNITS TWO BOULEVARD TREES REQUIRED PRIOR TO HOME OCCUPANCY 19 UNITS 90 UNITS SUBDIVISION TREE REQUIREMENTS TOWNHOME TREE REQUIREMENTS THREE BOULEVARD TREES REQUIRED PRIOR TO TOWN HOME OCCUPANCY24 UNITS TWO BOULEVARD TREES REQUIRED PRIOR TO TOWN HOME OCCUPANCY I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT 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. SIGNATURE:____________________ JOSEPH L. SCHEFFLER PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE Date: License #: PL A N - T yp e SI T E P L A N N I N G & L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N i n f o @ p l a n - t y p e . c o m 55597 06-30-2026 DRAWN BY PROJECT MANAGER LOUIE J + L MEADOWBROOK MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ISSUE LOG Expiration: 12-09-2024 12-09-2024 SUBMITTAL NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N SOUTH LANDSCAPE PLAN L102Know what's below. before you dig.Call R N 0 SCALE: 1"=60' 60 120 17 OF 18 SHEETS KF (4) KF (4)KF (4) KF (4) SE (4) RS (3) LL (3) SW (6) LL (3) RS (3) SE (4) KF (4) SE (4) KF (4)KF (4)KF (4) SE (4) RS (3) LL (3) SW (6) LL (3) RS (3) SE (4) SE (4) SE (4) SE (4) SEEDSEEDSEED SEED SEED SEED SEED SEED SEED SEED SEED SEED 3" ROCK MULCH & EDGING 3" ROCK MULCH & EDGING 3" ROCK MULCH & EDGING 3" ROCK MULCH & EDGING 3" ROCK MULCH & EDGING 3" ROCK MULCH & EDGING LANDSCAPE PLANT LEGEND SHRUBS SW POT 5'H x 3'W12SUMMER WINE NINEBARK Physocarpus opulifolius 'Seward' SE POT 1.5'H x 2'W32AUTUMN FIRE Sedum x 'Autumn Fire' KF #1 CONT.POT 4'H x 2.5'W32KARL FORESTER FEATHER REED GRASS Calamagrotis x acutiflora 'Karl Forester' ORNAMENTAL GRASSES PERENNIALS #2 CONT. #1 CONT. LL POT 5'H x 5'W12LITTLE LIME HYDRANGEA Hydrangea paniculata 'Jane'#3 CONT. RS POT 4'H x 3'W12RUSSIAN SAGE Salvia yangii #1 CONT. EDGING - --- LF ROCK MULCH - --- CY I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT 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. SIGNATURE:____________________ JOSEPH L. SCHEFFLER PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE Date: License #: PL A N - T yp e SI T E P L A N N I N G & L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N i n f o @ p l a n - t y p e . c o m 55597 06-30-2026 DRAWN BY PROJECT MANAGER LOUIE J + L MEADOWBROOK MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ISSUE LOG Expiration: 12-09-2024 12-09-2024 SUBMITTAL NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N TYPICAL TOWNHOUSE FOUNDATION PLAN L103Know what's below. before you dig.Call R N 0 SCALE: 1"=10' 105 20 LANDSCAPE NOTES: ·CONTRACTOR TO HAVE ALL UTILITIES ON SITE VERIFIED AND MARKED BEFORE STARTING WORK. ··CONTRACTOR IS LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING UTILITIES ON SITE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REPAIRING/REPLACING DAMAGE. ·CONTRACTOR IS LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGE RELATED TO CONTRACTORS ACTIVITY ON SITE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REPAIRING/REPLACING DAMAGE. ·OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR PLANTING IN ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY. ·COMPLETE WORK PER OWNERS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COORDINATE WORK WITH OTHERS ON SITE. ·PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND BE FREE OF DISEASE AND DAMAGE. ··ALL PLANT MATERIALS TO BE WARRANTIED ONE (1) FULL YEAR FROM THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER, WITH ONE TIME REPLACEMENT. ··WATER AND MAINTAIN ALL PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL ACCEPTED BY OWNER. ·IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOW ON THE PLAN COMPARED TO THE PLANT LEGEND, THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE. ·ALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO RECEIVE 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON PLANS. ··VERIFY TOPSOIL DEPTH AND NOTIFY OWNER OF ANY DEFICIENCY. ··REPLACEMENT TOPSOIL SHOULD BE CLEAN, FREE OF DEBRIS, SHARP OBJECTS, ROCKS AND WEEDS. ··ALL AREAS TO BE LANDSCAPED AND SODDED SHALL BE GRADED SMOOTH AND EVEN. ·SOD TO BE A KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS SEED VARIETY. ··NO GUARANTEE ON SOD EXCEPT SOD THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. ··STAKE SOD ON SLOPES 3:1 AND GREATER. ·PROVIDE BLANKET ON ALL SEEDED AREAS THAT ARE SLOPED. MULCH APPLICATION FOR ALL OTHER SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE HYDROMULCH OR DISCED STRAW DEPENDING ON SEED TYPE. ·INSTALL BLACK VINYL EDGING AROUND ALL PLANTING BEDS AS SHOWN ON PLAN. ·MULCH TO BE FINELY SHREDDED, UNDYED, HARDWOOD ORGANIC MULCH INSTALLED TO 4" DEPTH. ··NO WEED FABRIC BARRIER BENEATH ORGANIC MULCHES. ··TREES SHALL HAVE MULCH PULLED BACK 2" FROM BASE OF TRUNK. ··NO EDGING AROUND TREES OUTSIDE OF SHRUB BEDS. ·ROCK MULCH SHALL BE 1-1/2" DIAMETER WASHED RIVER ROCK INSTALLED TO 3" DEPTH WITH APPROVED WEED FABRIC BARRIER. ·SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVEMENT AREAS AFTER LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION IS COMPLETE AND ACCEPTED BY OWNER, DAILY CLEANING TO BE COMPLETED IF REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. SCARIFY & SPREAD ROOT MASS OVER-EXCAVATE 6" SUBGRADE REMOVE DEAD & BROKEN BRANCHES EXPOSE ROOT FLARE, SET AT FINISH GRADE 4" DEPTH MULCH FINISH GRADE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS (MULTI-FAMILY 5+ UNITS) ·TWO (2) SHRUBS PER 10 LF OF BUILDING PERIMETER ·484 LF = 96.8 SHRUBS REQUIRED ·100 SHRUBS PROVIDED 18 OF 18 SHEETS 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 22 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151613121110 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 3 2 1 7 1 20 19 18 17 161514 12 13 10 11 9 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 67 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 6 789101112 3 OUTLOT B 6 5 4 9 8 6 5 234 1234567891011121234 1234 123 654 123 654 123 1 23 4 8 76 5 12 3 65 4 5 1 234 8765 12 34 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 8 76 111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 OUTLOT D OUTLOT D OU T L O T D 23 EDMONSON AVENUE NE 87 T H S T . N E P R O P O S E D R O A D COUNTRY AVE 89 T H S T R E E T N E P A R K DR I V E PRIVATE PR I V A T E R O A D PRIVATE ROAD ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com 12-9-24 PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN MEADOWBROOK JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 181 N N Vicinity Map PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN SET: MEADOWBROOK MONTICELLO, MN Feet 0 100 200 I 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:_________________________ November 1, 2024 HGTS Project Number: 24-0771 Mr. Art Plante JPB Land, LLC 13700 Reimer Drive North, Suite 100 Maple Grove, MN 55311 Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Residential Development, Monticello, Minnesota Dear Mr. Plante: We have completed the geotechnical exploration report for the proposed residential development in Monticello, Minnesota. A brief summary of our results and recommendations is presented below. Specific details regarding our procedures, results and recommendations follow in the attached geotechnical exploration report. Twelve (12) soil borings were completed for this project that encountered about 2 feet of topsoil underlain by native glacial outwash soils that extended to the termination depths of the borings. Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings while drilling and sampling or after removal of the auger from the boreholes. The vegetation and topsoil are not suitable for building, roadway or utility support and will need to be removed and replaced, as needed, with suitable compacted engineered fill. It is our opinion that the underlying native glacial outwash soils are suitable for foundation support. With the building pads prepared as recommended it is our opinion that the foundations for the proposed buildings can be designed for a net allowable soil bearing capacity up to 2,000 pounds per square foot. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Paul Gionfriddo at 612-729-2959. Sincerely, Haugo GeoTechnical Services Nic Alfonso, G.I.T. Paul Gionfriddo, P.E. Project Geologist Senior Engineer GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT PROJECT: Proposed Residential Development Edmonson Avenue NE Monticello, Minnesota PREPARED FOR: JPB Land, LLC 13700 Reimer Drive North, Suite 100 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 PREPARED BY: Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407 Haugo GeoTechnical Services Project: 24-0771 November 1, 2024 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or 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. Paul Gionfriddo, P.E. Senior Engineer License Number: 23093 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Purpose 1 1.3 Site Description 1 1.4 Scope of Services 1 1.5 Documents Provided 2 1.6 Locations and Elevations 2 2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES 2 3.0 RESULTS 3 3.1 Soil Conditions 3 3.2 Groundwater 3 3.3 Laboratory Testing 3 3.4 OSHA Soil Classification 4 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 4.1 Proposed Construction 4 4.2 Discussion 4 4.3 Site Grading Recommendations 5 4.4 Dewatering 6 4.5 Interior Slabs 7 4.6 Below Grade Walls 7 4.7 Retaining Walls 8 4.8 Exterior Slabs 8 4.9 Site Grading and Drainage 9 4.10 Utilities 9 4.11 Bituminous Pavements 10 4.12 Materials and Compaction 10 4.13 Stormwater Ponds/Infiltration Basins 11 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 12 5.1 Excavation 12 5.2 Observations 12 5.3 Backfill and Fills 12 5.4 Testing 12 5.5 Winter Construction 12 6.0 PROCEDURES 13 6.1 Soil Classification 13 6.2 Groundwater Observations 13 7.0 GENERAL 13 7.1 Subsurface Variations 13 7.2 Review of Design 13 7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations 13 7.4 Use of Report 14 7.5 Level of Care 14 APPENDIX Boring Location Sketch, Figure 1 Soil Boring Logs, SB-30 thru SB-41 Double Ring Infiltrometer Tests (4) Descriptive Terminology 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description JPB Land, LLC, in conjunction with their civil engineering consultants, is preparing for construction of a residential development in Monticello, Minnesota and retained Haugo GeoTechnical Services (HGTS) to perform a geotechnical exploration to evaluate the suitability of site soil conditions to support the proposed development. We understand the project will include preparing lots and house pads for 147 single-family homes along with the associated streets, underground utilities and stormwater ponds. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and provide recommendations for foundation design and construction. 1.3 Site Description The project site is located east of Edmonson Avenue NE between 85th Street NE and School Boulevard. The project site was an approximate 56-acre parcel that was used for agricultural purposes at the time of this assessment. Transmission lines traveled through the north portion of the property. The site topography was relatively flat across the property with the elevations at the soil boring locations ranging from about 958 to 966 ½ feet above mean sea level (MSL). 1.4 Scope of Services Our services were performed in accordance with the Haugo Geotechnical Services proposal 24-0771 dated September 25, 2024. Our services were performed under the terms of our General Conditions and were limited to the following tasks: Completing twelve (12) standard penetration test soil borings and extending to nominal depths of 20 feet. Excavating and backfill test pits for double rings. Completing four (4) double ring infiltrometer tests. Sealing the boring in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health requirements. Obtaining GPS coordinates and ground surface elevations at the soil boring location. Visually/manually classifying samples recovered from the soil boring. Performing laboratory tests on selected samples. Preparing soil boring logs describing the materials encountered and the results of groundwater level measurements. Preparing an engineering report describing soil and groundwater conditions and providing recommendations for foundation design and construction. 2 1.5 Documents Provided We were provided a “Concept Plan” prepared by Otto Associates and dated August 22, 2024. The plan provided a layout of the proposed residential development and showed the proposed soil boring locations and double ring infiltrometer test locations. We were also provided 2 untitled plan sheets that showed the double ring infiltrometer test locations and the bottom of the infiltration basin elevations. And we were provided a “Soil Boring Location” map that was prepared by Otto Associates. The map generally consisted of a survey of the property the showed the boring locations and included the ground surface elevations at the boring locations. Other than the plans described above, specific architectural, structural or civil documents were not provided at the time of this assessment. 1.6 Locations and Elevations The soil boring and double ring infiltrometer locations were selected by JPB Land, LLC and/or Otto Associates and were staked in the field in advance of our field work. The approximate locations of the soil borings and double ring infiltrometer tests are shown on Figure 1, “Soil Boring Location Sketch,” in the Appendix. The sketch was prepared by HGTS using the “Soil Boring Location” map provided as a base. Ground surface elevations at the soil boring locations were provided by Otto Associates. 2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES The standard penetration test borings were advanced on October 16 and 17, 2024 by HGTS with a rotary drilling rig, using continuous flight augers to advance the boreholes. Representative samples were obtained from the borings, using the split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel spoon is driven into the ground with a 140- pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration is recorded as the standard penetration resistance value, or "N" value. The results of the standard penetration tests are indicated on the boring logs. The samples were sealed in containers and provided to HGTS for testing and soil classification. A field log of each boring was prepared by HGTS. The logs contain visual classifications of the soil materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples and water observation notes. The final boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on visual/manual method observation of the samples. The soil boring logs, general terminology for soil description and identification, and classification of soils for engineering purposes are also included in the appendix. The soil boring logs identify and describe the materials encountered, the relative density or consistency 3 based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N-value, “blows per foot”) and groundwater observations. The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the samples and auger cuttings. The depths shown as changes between strata are only approximate. The changes are likely transitions, variations can occur beyond the location of the borings. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Soil Conditions At the surface, the soil borings encountered about 2 feet of topsoil consisting of clayey sand or sandy lean clay that was black in color and contained traces of roots. Below the topsoil, the soil borings encountered native glacial outwash soils that extended to the termination depths of the borings. The native glacial outwash soils consisted of poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt, silty sand and sandy lean clay that was brown and greyish brown in color. Penetration resistance values (N-Values), shown as blows per foot (bpf) on the boring logs, within the poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt and silty sand soils ranged from 3 to 37 bpf indicating a very loose to dense relative density. N-Values within the sandy lean clay soils ranged from 4 to 37 bpf indicating a rather soft to hard consistency. 3.2 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings while drilling and sampling or after removal of the auger from the boreholes. Groundwater appears to be below the depths explored by our borings. Water levels were measured on the dates as noted on the boring logs and the period of water level observations was relatively short. Groundwater monitoring wells or piezometers would be required to more accurately determine water levels. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in the groundwater levels should be expected. 3.3 Laboratory Testing Laboratory moisture content tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the soil borings. Laboratory soil moisture contents of the sandy soils ranged from about 3 to 11 percent with most of the values near about 7 percent. Moisture contents of the clayey soils ranged from about 12 ½ to 21 ½ percent. Soils that will be excavated and reused as fill or backfill could require some moisture conditioning, either wetting or drying, to meet the recommend compaction levels. Laboratory tests results are shown on the boring logs adjacent to the samples tested. 4 3.4 OSHA Soil Classification The soils encountered in the borings consisted of poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt, silty sand and sandy lean clay corresponding to the ASTM Classifications of SP, SP- SM, SM and CL. Soils classified as SP, SP-SM and SM will generally be Type C soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, while soils classified as CL will generally be Type B soils under OSHA guidelines. An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Proposed Construction We understand that the project will include preparing lots and house pads for 147 single- family homes along with the associated streets, underground utilities and stormwater ponds. We were not provided specific architectural, structural or civil construction plans, but we assume the homes will include one or two stories above grade with walkout, lookout or full basements. We anticipate below grade construction consisting of cast-in-place concrete foundation walls supported on concrete spread footings. The above grade construction is assumed to consist of wood framing, a pitched roof and asphalt shingles. Based on the assumed construction we estimate wall loadings will range from about 2 to 3 kips (2,000 to 3,000 pounds) per lineal foot and column loads, if any, will be on the order of 75 kips (75,000 pounds). We anticipate the buildings will be constructed at or near existing site grades so that cuts or fill for permanent grade changes will generally be on the order of 5 feet or less. We have attempted to describe our understanding of the project. If the proposed loads exceed these values or if the design or location of the proposed development changes, we should be informed. Additional analyses and revised recommendations may be necessary. 4.2 Discussion The vegetation and topsoil not suitable for foundation, roadway or utility support and will need to be removed from below the building pads, pavements, utilities and oversize areas and replaced with suitable competed engineered fill, as needed, to attain design grades. It is our opinion that the underlying native glacial outwash soils are generally suitable for foundation, pavements and utility support. Prior to placing additional fill or foundations we recommend compacting any loose soils and any soils disturbed during excavation and grading activities. 5 Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings while drilling and sampling or after removal of the auger from the boreholes. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered and do not anticipate that dewatering will be required. The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design and construction. 4.3 Site Grading Recommendations Excavation We recommend that all vegetation, topsoil and any soft or otherwise unsuitable soils, if encountered, be removed from below the proposed building, roadway, utility and oversize areas. Table 1 summarizes the anticipated excavation depths at the soil boring locations. Excavation depths may vary and could be deeper. Table 1. Anticipated Excavation Depths Boring Number Measured Surface Elevation (feet) Anticipated Excavation Depth (feet)* Anticipated Excavation Elevation (feet)* SB-30 966.2 2 964 SB-31 966.6 2 964 ½ SB-32 966.1 2 964 SB-33 962.0 2 960 SB-34 959.9 2 958 SB-35 961.4 2 959 ½ SB-36 963.3 2 961 ½ SB-37 965.2 2 963 SB-38 961.3 2 959 ½ SB-39 958.8 2 957 SB-40 959.8 2 958 SB-41 958.2 2 956 * = Excavation depths and elevations were rounded to nearest ½ foot. Oversizing In areas where the excavations for soil corrections extend below the proposed footing elevations, the excavations require oversizing. We recommend the perimeter of the excavation be extended a foot outside the proposed footprint for every foot below footing grade (1H:1V oversizing). The purpose of the oversizing is to provide lateral support of the foundation. Fill Material Additional fill required to attain design grades can consist of any mineral soil provided it is free of debris, organic soil and any soft or otherwise unsuitable materials. The on-site native glacial outwash soils appear to be suitable for reuse as structural fill or backfill provided it is free of debris, organic soils or other unsuitable materials. Laboratory soil moisture contents ranged from about 3 to 21 ½ percent. These values indicate the soils ranged from below the above their assumed optimum moisture content based on the standard Proctor test. Soils that will be excavated and reused as fill and backfill could require some moisture conditioning (either wetting or drying) to achieve the recommended compaction levels. 6 Topsoil or other soils that are black in color are not suitable for reuse as structural fill or backfill. Backfilling Prior to placing additional fill or foundations we recommend compacting any loose soils and any soils disturbed during excavation and grading activities. We recommend that backfill placed to attain site grades be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). Granular fill classified as SP or SP-SM should be placed within 65 percent to 105 percent of its optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. Other fill soils should be placed within 3 percentage points above and 1 percentage point below its optimum moisture content as determined by the standard Proctor. All fill should be placed in thin lifts and be compacted with a large self- propelled vibratory compactor operating in vibratory mode. In areas where fill depths will exceed 10 feet, if any, we recommend that compaction levels be increased to a minimum of 100 percent of standard Proctor density. Even with the increased compaction levels a construction delay may be required to allow for post settlement of the fill mass. Fill and backfill placed on slopes, if any, must be “benched” into the underlying suitable soils to reduce the potential for slip places to develop between the fill and underlying soil. We recommend “benching” or excavating into the slope at 5 feet vertical intervals to key the fill into the slope. We recommend each bench be a minimum of 10 feet wide. Foundations We recommend the perimeter footings bear a minimum of 42 inches below the exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings may be placed immediately below the slab provided construction does not occur during below freezing weather conditions. Foundation elements in unheated areas (i.e., deck or porch footings) should bear at least 5 feet below exterior grade for frost protection. We anticipate the foundations and floor slabs will bear on compacted engineered fill or native glacial outwash soils. With the building pad prepared as recommended, it is our opinion the footings can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). We anticipate total and differential settlement of the foundations will be less than 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively, across a 30-foot span. 4.4 Dewatering Groundwater was not encountered in the borings while drilling and sampling or after removal of the auger from the boreholes. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered and do not anticipate that dewatering will be required. 7 4.5 Interior Slabs The anticipated floor subgrade will consist of compacted engineered fill or native glacial outwash soils. It is our opinion a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (psi) may be used to design the floor. If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the concrete slab will be used, we recommend that a vapor retarder or vapor barrier be placed immediately beneath the slab. Some contractors prefer to bury the vapor barrier or vapor retarder beneath a layer of sand to reduce curling and shrinkage, but this practice often traps water between the slab and vapor retarder or barrier. Regardless of where the vapor retarder or vapor barrier is placed, we recommend consulting the floor covering manufacturer regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor retarder or vapor barrier to preserve the warranty. We recommend following all state and local building codes with regards to a radon mitigation plan beneath interior slabs. 4.6 Below Grade Walls We recommend general waterproofing of the below grade walls. We recommend either placing drainage composite against the backs of the exterior walls or backfilling adjacent to the walls with sand having less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing the #40 sieve and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. The sand backfill should be placed within 2 feet horizontally of the wall. We recommend the balance of the backfill for the walls consist of sand however the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. We recommend installing drain tile behind the below grade walls, adjacent to the wall footing and below the slab elevation. Preferably the drain tile should consist of perforated pipe embedded in gravel. A geotextile filter fabric should encase the pipe and gravel. The drain tile should be routed to a storm sewer, sump pump or other suitable disposal site. Foundation walls or below grade (basement) walls will have lateral loads from the surrounding soil transmitted to them. Active earth pressures can be used to design the below grade walls if the walls are allowed to rotate slightly. If wall rotation cannot be tolerated, then below grade wall design should be based on at-rest earth pressures. It is our opinion that the estimated soil parameters presented in Table 2 can be used for below grade wall design. These estimated parameters are based on the assumptions that the walls are drained, there are no surcharge loads within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall and the backfill is level. 8 Table 2. Estimated Soil Parameters Soil Type Estimated Unit Weight (pcf) Estimated Friction Angle (degrees) At-Rest Pressure (pcf) Active Soil Pressure (pcf) Passive Soil Pressure (pcf) Sand (SP & SP-SM) 120 32 55 35 390 Other Soils (SM, CL) 135 28 70 50 375 Resistance to lateral earth pressures will be provided by passive resistance against the wall footings and by sliding resistance along the bottom of the wall footings. We recommend a sliding coefficient of 0.35. This value does not include a factor of safety. 4.7 Retaining Walls We are not aware of any retaining walls proposed for this project and were not provided any information regarding any proposed retaining walls. Retaining wall designers/installers should be aware that soil borings for any retaining walls were not completed as part of this evaluation. Because of that, additional geotechnical explorations (soil borings) could be required to determine and evaluate the suitability and/or stability of site soil conditions to support their design(s). Retaining wall designers and/or installers will be solely responsible to conduct additional geotechnical evaluation(s) as needed. In addition, HGTS does not practice in retaining wall design. Retaining wall designers will be solely responsible for retaining wall design and construction. 4.8 Exterior Slabs Exterior slabs could be underlain silty sand or clayey soils which are considered to be moderately to highly frost susceptible. If these soils become saturated and freeze, frost heave may occur. This heave can be a nuisance in front of doors and at other critical grade areas. One way to help reduce the potential for heaving is to remove the frost-susceptible soils below the slabs down to bottom of footing grades and replace them with non-frost-susceptible backfill consisting of sand having less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the number 200 sieve. If this approach is used and the excavation bottoms terminate in non-free draining granular soil, we recommend a drain tile be installed along the bottom outer edges of the excavation to collect and remove any water that may accumulate within the sand. The bottom of the excavation should be graded away from the building. If the banks of the excavations to remove the frost-susceptible soils are not sloped, abrupt transitions between the frost-susceptible and non-frost-susceptible backfill will exist along which unfavorable amounts of differential heaving may occur. Such transitions could exist between exterior slabs and sidewalks, between exterior slabs and pavements and along the slabs themselves if the excavations are confined to only the building entrances. To address 9 this issue, we recommend sloping the excavations to remove frost-susceptible soils at a minimum 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) gradient. An alternative method of reducing frost heave is to place a minimum of 2 inches of extruded polystyrene foam insulation beneath the slabs and extending it about 4 feet beyond the slabs. The insulation will reduce frost penetration into the underlying soil and reduce heave. Six to twelve inches of granular soil is typically placed over the insulation to protect it during construction. Another alternative for reducing frost heave is to support the slabs on frost depth footings. A void space of at least 4 inches should be provided between the slab and the underlying soil to allow the soil to heave without affecting the slabs. 4.9 Site Grading and Drainage We recommend the site be graded to provide positive run-off away from the proposed buildings. We recommend landscaped areas be sloped a minimum of 6 inches within 10 feet of the building and slabs be sloped a minimum of 2 inches. In addition, we recommend downspouts with long splash blocks or extensions. We recommend the lowest floor grades be constructed to meet City of Monticello requirements with respect to groundwater separation distances. In the absence of city requirements, we recommend maintaining at least a 4-foot separation between the lowest floor slab and the observed groundwater levels and at least a 2-foot separation between the lowest floor slab and the 100-year flood level of nearby wetlands, storm water ponds or other surface water features. 4.10 Utilities We anticipate that new utilities will be installed as part of this project. We further anticipate that new utilities will bear at depths ranging from about 7 to 10 feet below the ground surface. At these depths, we anticipate that the pipes will bear on compacted engineered fill or native glacial outwash soils, which in our opinion are suitable for pipe support. We recommend removing all vegetation, topsoil and any other unsuitable soils, if any, beneath utilities prior to placement. We recommend bedding material be thoroughly compacted around the pipes. We recommend trench backfill above the pipes be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent beneath slabs and pavements, the exception being within 3 feet of the proposed pavement subgrade, where 100 percent of standard Proctor density is required. In landscaped areas, we recommend a minimum compaction of 90 percent. Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings and we do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during utility construction. 10 4.11 Bituminous Pavements General The City of Monticello may have standard plates that dictate pavement design and if so, we recommend that the pavements be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Monticello standard plates. The following paragraphs provide general pavement recommendations in the absence of city standard plates. Traffic We were not provided any information regarding traffic volumes, such as Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) or vehicle distribution. We anticipate the streets will be used predominantly by automobiles, light trucks, school busses, garbage trucks and delivery vans (FEDEX, UPS etc.). Based on the anticipated number of homes in the development and assumed traffic types we estimate the roadways will be subjected to Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL’s) less than 50,000 over a 20-year design life. This does not account for any future growth. Subgrade Preparation We recommend removing all vegetation, topsoil and any soft or otherwise unsuitable materials from beneath the pavement subgrade. Prior to placing the aggregate base, we recommend compacting and/or test rolling the subgrade soils to identify soft, weak, loose, or unstable areas that may require additional subcuts. Backfill to attain pavement subgrade elevations can consist of any mineral soil provided it is free of organic material or other deleterious materials. We recommend placing and compacting fill and/or backfill as described in Section 4.3 except in paved areas where the upper 3 feet of fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. R-Value R-Value testing was beyond the scope of this project. The near-surface soils encountered in the soil borings consisted predominantly of poorly graded sand and poorly graded sand with silt corresponding to the ASTM Classifications of SP and SP-SM. It is our opinion an assumed R-Value of 50 can be used for pavement design. Pavement Section Based on an estimated R-value of 50 and a maximum of 50,000 ESAL’s we recommend pavement section consisting of a minimum of 3 ½ inches of bituminous (1 ½ inches of wear course and 2 inches of base course) underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of aggregate base. 4.12 Materials and Compaction We recommend specifying aggregate base meeting MN/DOT Class 5 aggregate base. We recommend the aggregate base be compacted to 100 percent of its maximum standard Proctor. We recommend that the bituminous wear and base courses meet the requirements of MN/DOT specification 2360. We recommend the bituminous pavements be compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum theoretical density. We recommend specifying concrete that has a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 psi, and a modulus of rupture of at least 600 psi. We recommend Type I cement meeting the requirements of ASTM C150. We recommend specifying 5 to 7 percent entrained air for 11 exposed concrete to provide resistance to freeze-thaw deterioration. We also recommend using a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less for concrete exposed to deicers. 4.13 Stormwater Ponds/Infiltration Basins Based on the provided concept plan, the project will include constructing storm water ponds/infiltration basins on the project site. Four (4) double ring infiltrometer tests were performed on October 11th and 14th, 2024 to measure in-situ soil permeability and was performed in general accordance with ASTM D3385-18, “Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field Using Double-Ring Infiltrometer”. A copy of the test results is included in the Appendix and the approximate test locations are shown on Figure 1 in the Appendix. The Double ring infiltrometer test results are summarized in Table 3. Columns 3 and 4 of the table provide an average infiltration rate and a stabilized infiltration rate, respectively. The “average” infiltration rate represents the average infiltration rate across the entire duration of the test. The initial phase of the test generally measures the “saturation” of the subgrade soils which typically results in a higher indicated infiltration rate. For that reason, the stabilized infiltration rate, which is typically the last hour, approximately, of the tests is typically used for design purposes. The double ring infiltrometer test performed in the basin at Outlot C (#42) showed no measurable infiltration after 1 hour. Because of that the test was terminated. Table 3. Summary of Double Ring Infiltrometer Results Test Location Approximate Test Elevation (feet) Soil Type Average Infiltration Rate (inches/hour)* Stabilized Infiltration Rate (inches/hour)* Outlot C (#42) 946 CL none measured none measured Outlot D1 (#43) 946 SP-SM 1.1 1.1 Outlot D2 (#44) 946 SP-SM 5 4.3 Outlot E (#45) 953 SP-SM 5.7 4.3 * = Test results were rounded to the nearest 0.1 inch/hour CL= Sandy Lean Clay SP-SM = Poorly Graded Sand with Silt It should be noted that soil infiltration rates can vary due to; soil moisture content, soil compaction, the placement or introduction of fine-grained soils, topsoil or biofiltration media and changes or variations in local groundwater levels. These variations may result in additional construction costs and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. 12 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Excavation The soils encountered in the borings consisted of poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt, silty sand and sandy lean clay corresponding to the ASTM Classifications of SP, SP- SM, SM and CL. Soils classified as SP, SP-SM and SM will generally be Type C soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines, while soils classified as CL will generally be Type B soils under OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations in Type C soils should be constructed at a minimum of 1 ½ foot horizontal to every 1 foot vertical within excavations. Temporary excavations in Type B soils should be constructed at a minimum of 1 foot horizontal to every 1 foot vertical within excavations. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of slopes with these dimensions, then temporary shoring may be required. 5.2 Observations A geotechnical engineer or a qualified engineering technician should observe the excavation subgrade to evaluate if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered in the borings and adequate to support the proposed construction. 5.3 Backfill and Fills The on-site soils appear to be below their assumed optimum soil moisture content. If these soils will be used or reused as structural fill or backfill, some wetting of the soils could be required to meet the recommend compaction levels. We recommend moisture conditioning all soils that will be used as fill or backfill in accordance with Section 4.3 above. We recommend that fill and backfill be placed in lifts not exceeding 4 to 12 inches, depending on the size of the compactor and materials used. 5.4 Testing We recommend density tests of backfill and fills placed for the proposed foundations. Samples of the proposed materials should be submitted to our laboratory prior to placement for evaluation of their suitability and to determine their optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (Standard Proctor). 5.5 Winter Construction If site grading and construction is anticipated to proceed during cold weather, all snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading and placement of fill. No fill should be placed on frozen soil and no frozen soil should be used as fill or backfill. Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM and/or ACI. Concrete should not be placed on frozen soil. Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is obtained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below the footings. 13 6.0 PROCEDURES 6.1 Soil Classification The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedure).” Soil terminology notes are included in the Appendix. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review of the field classification by a soils engineer. Samples will be retained for a period of 30 days. 6.2 Groundwater Observations Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottom of the boring, the hole was checked for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after removing the augers from the borehole the hole was once again checked and the depth to water and cave-in depths were noted. 7.0 GENERAL 7.1 Subsurface Variations The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from a limited number of soil borings. Variations can occur away from the boring, the nature of which may not become apparent until additional exploration work is completed, or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program during construction to evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes have affected the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the designs, specifications and construction methods. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings and will provide continuity of professional responsibility. 7.2 Review of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed structures as related to us for preparation of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the design and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes have affected the validity of the recommendations and whether our recommendations have been correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. 7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations We made water level measurements in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring log. The data was interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively short and fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, 14 flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. 7.4 Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of JPB Land, LLC and their design team to use to design the proposed structures and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analysis and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. 7.5 Level of Care Haugo GeoTechnical Services has used the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under similar circumstance by members of the profession currently practicing in this locality. No warranty expressed or implied is made. APPENDIX 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT B OUTLOT D OUTLOT A 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95 6 E D M O N D S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST NE 89TH ST N E PARK DRIVE 87TH S T N E C O U N T R Y A V E FAIRHALL CT OUTLOT E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 8 7654321 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 29 31 7 7 40 39444546 8 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 12 13 10 11 97 9 10 11 4 3 2 1 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 OUTLOT C 30 35 34 33 32 38 37 36 414243 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 S H E E T N O . O F S H E E T S R E V . N O . D A T E B Y D E S C R I P T I O N D E S I G N E D D R A W N C H E C K E D D A T E : P R O J E C T N O : E n g i n e e r s & L a n d S u r v e y o r s , I n c . S S O C I A T E S 9 W e s t D i v i s i o n S t r e e t B u f f a l o , M N 5 5 3 1 3 ( 7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 - 4 7 2 7 F a x : ( 7 6 3 ) 6 8 2 - 3 5 2 2 w w w . o t t o a s s o c i a t e s . c o m 2 4 - 0 3 1 4 8 - 2 2 - 2 4 C O N C E P T P L A N 1 1 J P B L A N D , L L C M O N T I C E L L O , M N N Fe e t 0 10 0 20 0 Haugo GeoTechnical Services, LLC 2825 Cedar Avenue S. Minneapolis, MN 55407 Figure #: 1 Drawn By: AMH Date: 11-1-2024 Scale: None Project #: 24-0771 Soil Boring Location Sketch Monticello, Minnesota Legend Approximate Soil Boring Location Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. DOUBLE RING-45 SB-40 SB-41 DOUBLE RING-43 DOUBLE RING-42 DOUBLE RING-44 SB-33 SB-32 SB-31 SB-30 SB-37 SB-35 SB-38 SB-36 SB-34 SB-39 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 25 SS 26 SS 27 SS 28 SS 29 SS 30 SS 31 SS 32 3-4-7 (11) 4-8-11 (19) 5-6-8 (14) 3-6-6 (12) 5-6-7 (13) 5-6-7 (13) 4-5-9 (14) 7.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 966.2 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/16/24 COMPLETED 10/16/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-30 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained with Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 17 SS 18 SS 19 SS 20 SS 21 SS 22 SS 23 SS 24 5-5-6 (11) 8-10-10 (20) 3-5-7 (12) 3-3-5 (8) 3-5-4 (9) 4-6-9 (15) 5-9-9 (18) 4.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 966.6 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/16/24 COMPLETED 10/16/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-31 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Sandy Lean Clay, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, greyish brown, moist, loose to medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, greyish brown, moist, rather soft (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 9 SS 10 SS 11 SS 12 SS 13 SS 14 SS 15 SS 16 4-5-7 (12) 4-7-10 (17) 2-6-7 (13) 2-3-3 (6) 5-4-5 (9) 5-3-7 (10) 1-2-2 (4) 3 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 966.1 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/16/24 COMPLETED 10/16/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-32 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, dark brown to black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 1 SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7 SS 8 3-6-7 (13) 2-7-6 (13) 2-4-5 (9) 1-4-8 (12) 2-5-5 (10) 4-7-6 (13) 4-3-2 (5) 7 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 962 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/16/24 COMPLETED 10/16/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-33 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, stiff (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, greyish brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 73 SS 74 SS 75 SS 76 SS 77 SS 78 SS 79 SS 80 2-3-3 (6) 3-7-8 (15) 6-6-6 (12) 4-4-3 (7) 5-8-8 (16) 7-11-14 (25) 4-5-9 (14) 7 12.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 959.9 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/17/24 COMPLETED 10/17/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-34 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine to coarse grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, loose (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, rather stiff (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 57 SS 58 SS 59 SS 60 SS 61 SS 62 SS 63 SS 64 3-2-2 (4) 3-3-5 (8) 4-3-4 (7) 4-3-4 (7) 2-3-4 (7) 4-6-6 (12) 1-5-7 (12) 11 18 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 961.4 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/16/24 COMPLETED 10/16/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-35 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, rather soft to medium (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 41 SS 42 SS 43 SS 44 SS 45 SS 46 SS 47 SS 48 6-7-9 (16) 5-10-10 (20) 4-7-4 (11) 5-6-7 (13) 1-3-2 (5) 2-3-4 (7) 3-7-11 (18) 7.5 19 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 963.3 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/16/24 COMPLETED 10/16/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-36 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SM) Silty Sand, brown, moist, very loose (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose to medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium to rather stiff (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 33 SS 34 SS 35 SS 36 SS 37 SS 38 SS 39 SS 40 2-1-2 (3) 2-2-1 (3) 3-5-9 (14) 4-3-5 (8) 3-3-6 (9) 2-9-15 (24) 3-4-4 (8) 7 15.4 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 965.2 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/16/24 COMPLETED 10/16/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-37 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine to coarse grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium to rather stiff (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 49 SS 50 SS 51 SS 52 SS 53 SS 54 SS 55 SS 56 2-2-3 (5) 2-3-5 (8) 3-3-4 (7) 3-4-5 (9) 6-6-6 (12) 2-4-7 (11) 3-7-6 (13) 7 16.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 961.3 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/16/24 COMPLETED 10/16/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-38 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP-SM) Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine to coarse grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium to rather stiff (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 65 SS 66 SS 67 SS 68 SS 69 SS 70 SS 71 SS 72 2-3-2 (5) 3-4-10 (14) 3-4-6 (10) 3-3-5 (8) 3-6-8 (14) 2-5-6 (11) 5-11-10 (21) 8 18 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 958.8 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/17/24 COMPLETED 10/17/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-39 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 89 SS 90 SS 91 SS 92 SS 93 SS 94 SS 95 SS 96 3-6-10 (16) 5-6-8 (14) 4-6-8 (14) 5-11-13 (24) 6-4-3 (7) 5-7-6 (13) 4-6-8 (14) 21.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 959.8 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/17/24 COMPLETED 10/17/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-40 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, moist (Topsoil) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, dense (Glacial Outwash) (CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist, hard (Glacial Outwash) (SP) Poorly Graded Sand, fine to coarse grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (Glacial Outwash) Bottom of borehole at 21.0 feet. AU 81 SS 82 SS 83 SS 84 SS 85 SS 86 SS 87 SS 88 2-5-9 (14) 7-8-11 (19) 10-10-12 (22) 10-10-4 (14) 1-3-3 (6) 4-13-24 (37) 4-7-11 (18) 6 17.5 NOTES GROUND ELEVATION 958.2 ft LOGGED BY NC/MS DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS- 45 GROUND WATER LEVELS: CHECKED BY PG DATE STARTED 10/17/24 COMPLETED 10/17/24 AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t (% ) FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC PAGE 1 OF 1 BORING NUMBER SB-41 CLIENT JPB Land, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 24-0771 PROJECT NAME Monticello Residential Development PROJECT LOCATION Monticello, MN GE O T E C H B H P L O T S - G I N T S T D U S L A B . G D T - 1 1 / 1 / 2 4 1 2 : 0 0 - C : \ U S E R S \ A L I C E H A U G O \ H G T S D R O P B O X \ L A B H A U G O \ H A U G O G E O T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S \ G I N T P R O J E C T B A C K U P \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 4 - 0 7 7 1 B O R I N G L O G D R A F T . G P J Haugo GeoTechnical Services 2825 Cedar Ave South Minneapolis, MN, 55407 Telephone: 612-729-2959 Fax: 763-445-2238 Constants Area cm2 Depth of Liquid (cm) Liquid Container Number Inner Ring 729 11.0 1 Elevation:Annular Space 2189 11.0 2 Liquid: Remarks Inner Ring Reading cm Inner Maroitte Tube Flow Annular Space Reading cm Annular Space Marriotte Tube Flow (ml) Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Annular Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Ground Temp Depth (in) Temp at Depth (F) Weather conditions Etc... Hourly Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Start Test 10/11/2024 11:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 11:45 0:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 11:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 12:00 0:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 12:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 12:15 0:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 12:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 12:30 1:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 12:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 12:45 1:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 12:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:00 1:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:15 1:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:30 2:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:45 2:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:00 2:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:15 2:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:30 3:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 11:30 End Test 14:30 3:00 0.00 0.002 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tested By: Penetration Depth of Outer Ring:Depth to water table:3 inches Start / End Date MM/DD/YY Time HR:MIN Elapsed Time Chg/(Total) Min Not encountered in 36" Liquid level maintained using:( X ) Flow Valve ( ) Float Valve ( ) Mariotte Tubes Liquid Temp (F) Flow Readings Infiltration Rate Ground Temperature N.Curtis Water 0 0.00 1 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 Infiltrometer Recording Chart Marriotte Tube Volume 3000 10000 Project Identification:24-0771 Soil Type: Test Location: cls Outlot C Basin Trial # 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 4 0 0 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 7 0.00 0.00 6 0.00 8 0.00 0.0015 11 10 0.0014 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 16 22 0.00 0.00 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00170.00 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Results 21 24 23 18 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Infiltration in Inches (3 Hour Test) Constants Area cm2 Depth of Liquid (cm) Liquid Container Number Inner Ring 729 11.0 1 Elevation:Annular Space 2189 11.0 2 Liquid: Remarks Inner Ring Reading cm Inner Maroitte Tube Flow Annular Space Reading cm Annular Space Marriotte Tube Flow (ml) Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Annular Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Ground Temp Depth (in) Temp at Depth (F) Weather conditions Etc... Hourly Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Start Test 10/11/2024 12:55 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:10 0:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:10 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:25 0:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:25 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:40 0:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:40 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:55 1:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:55 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:10 1:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:10 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:25 1:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:25 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:40 1:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:40 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:55 2:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:55 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 15:10 2:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 15:10 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 15:25 2:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 15:25 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 15:40 2:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 15:40 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 15:55 3:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 12:55 End Test 14:55 2:00 2.88 1.082 4000 19000 1.08 1.71 2.16 0.00 0.00 Tested By: Penetration Depth of Outer Ring:Depth to water table:3 inches Start / End Date MM/DD/YY Time HR:MIN Elapsed Time Chg/(Total) Min Not encountered in 36" Liquid level maintained using:( X ) Flow Valve ( ) Float Valve ( ) Mariotte Tubes Liquid Temp (F) Flow Readings Infiltration Rate Ground Temperature N.Curtis Water 3000 1.08 1 500 4000 1.08 500 1.08 Infiltrometer Recording Chart Marriotte Tube Volume 3000 10000 Project Identification:24-0771 Soil Type: Test Location: spsm Outlot D1 Trial # 2.16 1.44 1.44 5 500 2000 1.08 4 500 2000 3 500 2000 1.08 0.00 7 500 2000 1.08 1.44 6 500 2000 1.08 8 500 2000 1.08 0.0015 11 10 0.0014 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 16 22 0.00 0.00 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00170.00 0.00 9 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.00 1.44 1.44 0.00 Final Results 21 24 23 18 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Infiltration in Inches (2 Hour Test) Constants Area cm2 Depth of Liquid (cm) Liquid Container Number Inner Ring 729 11.0 1 Elevation:Annular Space 2189 11.0 2 Liquid: Remarks Inner Ring Reading cm Inner Maroitte Tube Flow Annular Space Reading cm Annular Space Marriotte Tube Flow (ml) Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Annular Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Ground Temp Depth (in) Temp at Depth (F) Weather conditions Etc... Hourly Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Start Test 10/14/2024 9:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 9:15 0:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 9:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 9:30 0:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 9:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 9:45 0:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 9:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 10:00 1:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 10:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 10:15 1:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 10:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 10:30 1:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 10:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 10:45 1:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 10:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:00 2:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:15 2:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:30 2:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:45 2:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:00 3:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 9:00 End Test 11:00 2:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Infiltration in Inches (2 Hour Test)Final Results 21 24 23 18 0.00 20 0.00 4.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.76 0.00 5.76 5.76 0.00 22 0.00 0.00 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00170.00 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 16 8 2000 8000 4.32 0.0015 11 10 0.0014 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 7 2000 8000 4.32 5.76 6 2000 8000 4.32 5 2000 8000 4.32 4 2000 8000 3 2000 8000 4.32 7.19 5.76 5.76 10000 6.48 1 3500 12000 7.56 3000 4.32 Infiltrometer Recording Chart Marriotte Tube Volume 3000 10000 Project Identification:24-0771 Soil Type: Test Location: spsm Outlot D-2 Trial # Tested By: Penetration Depth of Outer Ring:Depth to water table:3 inches Start / End Date MM/DD/YY Time HR:MIN Elapsed Time Chg/(Total) Min Not Encoutered in 36" Liquid level maintained using:( X ) Flow Valve ( ) Float Valve ( ) Mariotte Tubes Liquid Temp (F) Flow Readings Infiltration Rate Ground Temperature N.Curtis Water 8.63 5.672 18500 70000 5.00 6.29 9.99 0.00 0.00 Constants Area cm2 Depth of Liquid (cm) Liquid Container Number Inner Ring 729 11.0 1 Elevation:Annular Space 2189 11.0 2 Liquid: Remarks Inner Ring Reading cm Inner Maroitte Tube Flow Annular Space Reading cm Annular Space Marriotte Tube Flow (ml) Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Annular Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Ground Temp Depth (in) Temp at Depth (F) Weather conditions Etc... Hourly Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Start Test 10/14/2024 11:20 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:35 0:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:35 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:50 0:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:50 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:05 0:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 12:05 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:20 1:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 12:20 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:35 1:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 12:35 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:50 1:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 12:50 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 13:05 1:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 13:05 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 13:20 2:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 13:20 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 13:35 2:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 13:35 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 13:50 2:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 13:50 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 14:05 2:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 14:05 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 14:20 3:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 11:20 End Test 13:20 2:00 10.07 7.022 21000 86000 5.67 7.73 11.34 0.00 0.00 Tested By: Penetration Depth of Outer Ring:Depth to water table:3 inches Start / End Date MM/DD/YY Time HR:MIN Elapsed Time Chg/(Total) Min Not Encoutered in 36" Liquid level maintained using:( X ) Flow Valve ( ) Float Valve ( ) Mariotte Tubes Liquid Temp (F) Flow Readings Infiltration Rate Ground Temperature N.Curtis Water 12000 7.56 1 4500 14000 9.72 3500 5.40 Infiltrometer Recording Chart Marriotte Tube Volume 3000 10000 Project Identification:24-0771 Soil Type: Test Location: spsm Outlot E Trial # 8.63 7.19 7.19 5 2000 10000 4.32 4 2500 10000 3 2500 10000 5.40 0.00 7 2000 10000 4.32 7.19 6 2000 10000 4.32 8 2000 10000 4.32 0.0015 11 10 0.0014 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 16 22 0.00 0.00 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00170.00 0.00 9 0.00 4.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.19 0.00 7.19 7.19 0.00 Final Results 21 24 23 18 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Infiltration in Inches (2 Hour Test) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MEADOWBROOK Monticello, Minnesota 11-01-24; Revised 12-02-24; 12-13-24 Otto Project No. 24-0314 Prepared for: JPB Land, LLC Engineer Certification: I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Cara Schwahn Otto Reg. No. 40433 Date December 13, 2024 9 West Division Street, Buffalo, MN 55313 • 763-682-4727 • Fax 763-682-3522 • www.ottoassociates.com Stormwater Management Plan Meadowbrook TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Stormwater Management Regulatory Agencies .............................................................. 1 1.2 Applicable Stormwater Design Standards ....................................................................... 1 1.3 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Soil Information .............................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Proposed Conditions ..................................................................................................... 2 2.0 STORMWATER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Rate Control Analysis ..................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Volume Control Analysis ................................................................................................. 3 2.3 High Water Level Comparison ........................................................................................ 3 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 City’s Water Resource Management Map Figure 3 Proposed Drainage Map Figure 4 Offsite Drainage Map APPENDICES Appendix A Original Watershed Design HydroCAD Model Appendix B Proposed HydroCAD Model Appendix C Offsite Comparison Model Appendix D Stage-Storage Table Appendix E Outlet Control Structure Details Appendix F Geotechnical Infiltration Logs Stormwater Management Plan Meadowbrook 1 1.0 SUMMARY This report provides information regarding the proposed surface water management for a residential subdivision on a 56-acre property in Monticello, Minnesota. See Figure 1 for a site location map. 1.1 Stormwater Management Regulatory Agencies Governmental agencies with jurisdiction over drainage and stormwater for this project include: · City of Monticello · MPCA (NPDES permit) 1.2 Applicable Stormwater Design Standards Applicable design standards identified by the above-listed agencies include: · Rate Control: no increase in peak runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year design storms. · Volume Control: The City requires retainage of 1.1” of runoff from the site’s new and fully reconstructed impervious surface. · Water Quality Control: The water quality control standard shall be considered satisfied if the volume control standard has been satisfied. · Freeboard: The lowest opening of structures adjacent to outletted ponds shall be 2 feet above the HWL. Low openings of structures shall also be 1.5 feet above the emergency overflow. 1.3 Existing Conditions The site is currently cropland (row crops). The site drains easterly into storm sewer as part of the Hunter’s Crossing development, as well as internally into previously graded depressions within the large electric easement on the property. This parcel was originally planned to be a part of the Hunter’s Crossing development. Therefore, stormwater management was designed at that time and runoff was handled in a series of basins. The City’s Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan includes the existing and proposed basins for this subwatershed. The HydroCAD model was also provided. For the Meadowbrook project, we used the watershed labeled “Klein Farms Watershed” as our existing conditions since the trunk storm sewer was designed using this model. There’s an existing outlet control structure in the northwest corner of the Meadowbrook property that is the offsite outlet for this watershed. See Figure 2 for the City’s Subwatershed Map and Appendix A for the City’s Water Resource HydroCAD modeling reports. Stormwater Management Plan Meadowbrook 2 1.4 Soil Information The onsite soils consist mostly of poorly graded sand with gravel. Hydrologic Soil Group A was used in the modeling. Twelve soil borings were conducted by Haugo Environmental Services and a geotechnical report was submitted to the City. Infiltration testing was also conducted by Haugo Environmental Services. Logs are included in Appendix F. 1.5 Proposed Conditions The development proposes 149 residential lots. The total new impervious surface proposed is 17.15 acres. See Figure 3 for a proposed conditions drainage map and Appendix B for proposed HydroCAD modeling reports. The City’s model was modified to adjust for the changes proposed within the Meadowbrook property. This includes modifications to Areas KF-01, KF-03, KF-04 & KF-05. Also, no piped outlet was found on the existing basin #204, so the exfiltration outlet was removed from the ponding node in the model. Two stormwater ponds are being proposed under the electric easement, along with an infiltration basin. These basins, along with existing basins to the east, are interconnected and outlet via the existing outlet control structure in the northwest corner of the Meadowbrook development (Outlot A). This outlet control is connected to the City’s 30” trunk storm sewer that drains under Edmonson Avenue. Since the original Hunter’s Crossing stormwater design included a pond near Edmonson, the existing outlet control structure includes a skimmer pipe that is currently buried. The northwest corner of Meadowbrook is now proposed as a City BMX park so we are proposing a skimmer outlet on Pond #1 and modifying the existing outlet control to include a pipes inlet at ground level. The proposed modifications to the existing OCS and a detail of Pond #1’s OCS can be found in Appendix E. There are a couple small drainage areas within the Meadowbrook property that don’t drain to the new basins. The Water Resource Watershed Map shows a small portion draining north into Klein Farms 4th Addition near Country Avenue and east near Park Drive into Klein Farms 6th Addition. The Meadowbrook grading is proposing equal or less area to these tributaries. Refer to Figure 4 and Areas 5 & 6 of Figure 2. 2.0 STORMWATER ANALYSIS 2.1 Rate Control Analysis The property discharges to the City’s trunk storm sewer system that flows northwest from the site. A comparison of the discharge rates from the City’s Water Resource Plan to the proposed Meadowbrook development is shown in the below table. Rate Control (cfs) Condition 2-Year, 24-hr 10-Year, 24-hr 100-Year, 24-hr Original Watershed Design to NW 7.68 10.94 13.83 Proposed to NW 0.21 1.33 8.48 Stormwater Management Plan Meadowbrook 3 Existing to North 0.62 1.87 4.90 Proposed P5 to North (P5) 0.03 0.61 3.26 Existing to East (Park Dr.) 0.57 1.71 4.49 Proposed P6 to East (Park Dr.) 0.02 0.34 1.88 The peak flow for proposed conditions is reduced relative to the original design for all modeled events. 2.2 Volume Control Analysis Minimum Abstraction Required = 18.76 acres x 1.1 inches = 74,909 cf An infiltration basin within Outlot C is proposed to meet the abstraction requirement. Infiltration volume provided below the overflow (946.7) = 75,460 cf Refer to Appendix C for the basin’s storage table printout. 2.3 High Water Level Comparison The below table is a comparison of the existing basins levels upstream of Meadowbrook. Pond Original Design Meadowbrook Design KF-08/Pond 6 952.7 952.6 KF-07/Pond 7 952.5 952.3 KE-05-06/Basin 204 952.3 951.8 FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3: PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP APPENDIX A P5 (1.1 Ac) < THIS AREA (1.3 Ac) P6 (0.7 Ac < THIS AREA (1.1 Ac) FIGURE 4 1.1 ac 1.3 ac HB-11S KLEIN FARMS 3RD-WEST AREA HB-12S KLEIN FARMS 3RD-TRIB. TO POND 3 OF ADD. KF-01S EAST OF EDMONSON AVE KF-02S NE CORNER OF 85TH ST AND EMONSON AVE KF-03S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) KF-04S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) KF-05S WEST OF EISELE AVE KF-06S FARMSTEAD AVE KF-07S FAIRHILL LANE KF-08S WEST OF FALLON AVENUE KF-09S AREA SE FALLON & 85TH-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 KF-10S AREA WEST & SOUTH OF 85TH-UNDEVELOPED KF-11S AREA NW OF FENNING & 85TH KF-12S KLEIN FARMS EAST TRIB. AREA TO POND/WETLAN KF-13AS EAST OF FALLON AVE, NORTH OF 85TH STREET KF-13S FALLON DRIVE 1R TO TRUNK STORM HB-11P KLEIN FARMS 3RD-SW QUAD SCHOOL & CR. 117 HB-12P KLEIN FARMS 3RD-POND3 KF-01P EAST OF EDMONSON AVE, SOUTH OF COBBLESTONE CT KF-02P PROPOSED POND KF-03P MIDDLE CHAIN POND KF-04P PROPOSED POND EXPANSION KF-05P PROPOSED POND KF-06P UPDATED: NORTH OF FAIRHILL LANE CUL-DE-SAC KF-07P POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET AND EAST OF FAIRHILL LANE KF-08P POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET KF-09P EXISTING BASIN-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 KF-10P EXISTING BASIN-SO 1/16 COR.,NW1/4,SEC 24 KF-11P DEPRESSION/WT SW1/4,NE1/4,SEC 24 KF-12P POND & WETLAND SE COR. KLEIN FARMS 3RD KF-13AP PROPOSED POND KF-13P POND EAST OF FALLON AVE Routing Diagram for REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc., Printed 12/13/2024 HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link APPENDIX A MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment HB-11S: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-WEST AREA Runoff = 15.60 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 1.607 af, Depth= 0.96" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.055 72 RESIDENTIAL * 4.000 98 POND 20.055 77 Weighted Average 16.055 80.05% Pervious Area 4.000 19.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 33.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment HB-12S: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-TRIB. TO POND 3 OF ADD. Runoff = 18.76 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 1.280 af, Depth= 0.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 17.700 72 RESIDENTIAL * 1.300 98 POND 19.000 74 Weighted Average 17.700 93.16% Pervious Area 1.300 6.84% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-01S: EAST OF EDMONSON AVE Runoff = 7.11 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.587 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 9.851 72 9.851 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-02S: NE CORNER OF 85TH ST AND EMONSON AVE Runoff = 9.62 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.794 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 13.339 72 13.339 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-03S: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Runoff = 3.98 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.280 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 4.700 72 4.700 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-04S: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Runoff = 12.96 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 1.733 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 29.100 72 29.100 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 45.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-05S: WEST OF EISELE AVE Runoff = 16.82 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 1.751 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 29.400 72 29.400 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-06S: FARMSTEAD AVE Runoff = 19.12 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.578 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 26.500 72 26.500 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-07S: FAIRHILL LANE Runoff = 15.44 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.274 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 21.400 72 21.400 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 5HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-08S: WEST OF FALLON AVENUE Runoff = 9.88 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.816 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description 13.700 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 9.590 70.00% Pervious Area 4.110 30.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-09S: AREA SE FALLON & 85TH-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Runoff = 47.85 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 6.719 af, Depth= 0.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 92.835 72 RESIDENTIAL * 6.900 99 POND/WATER 99.735 74 Weighted Average 92.835 93.08% Pervious Area 6.900 6.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 51.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-10S: AREA WEST & SOUTH OF 85TH-UNDEVELOPED Runoff = 31.24 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 2.876 af, Depth= 0.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 6HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description * 43.077 72 RESIDENTIAL * 2.300 98 BASIN/WATER 45.377 73 Weighted Average 43.077 94.93% Pervious Area 2.300 5.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-11S: AREA NW OF FENNING & 85TH Runoff = 40.02 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 3.746 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 62.600 72 RESIDENTIAL * 0.300 98 BASIN 62.900 72 Weighted Average 62.600 99.52% Pervious Area 0.300 0.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-12S: KLEIN FARMS EAST TRIB. AREA TO POND/WETLAN Runoff = 26.58 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 2.943 af, Depth= 0.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.300 72 KLEIN FARMS 3RD-RESIDENTIAL * 4.600 90 POND/WETLAND @ ELEV. 950 * 22.787 72 RES. 43.687 74 Weighted Average 43.687 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 35.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 7HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment KF-13AS: EAST OF FALLON AVE, NORTH OF 85TH STREET Runoff = 14.62 cfs @ 12.83 hrs, Volume= 2.249 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 37.761 72 RESIDENTIAL 37.761 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 55.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-13S: FALLON DRIVE Runoff = 8.85 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.769 af, Depth= 0.59" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description 11.515 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 4.242 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 15.757 69 Weighted Average 12.303 78.08% Pervious Area 3.454 21.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.8 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Calculated GIS Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.9 140 0.0070 1.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.8 465 0.0086 4.21 3.30 Pipe Channel, 12.0" Round Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets 19.5 805 Total Summary for Reach 1R: TO TRUNK STORM Inflow Area = 453.207 ac, 3.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.04" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 7.68 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 1.501 af Outflow = 7.68 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 1.501 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 8HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond HB-11P: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-SW QUAD SCHOOL & CR. 117 Inflow Area = 39.055 ac, 13.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.49" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 15.60 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 1.607 af Outflow = 0.85 cfs @ 15.61 hrs, Volume= 1.607 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 186.7 min Discarded = 0.85 cfs @ 15.61 hrs, Volume= 1.607 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 945.04' @ 15.61 hrs Surf.Area= 1.056 ac Storage= 1.070 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 5.080 ac Storage= 27.300 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 705.6 min ( 1,556.9 - 851.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 944.00' 38.130 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 944.00 0.320 0.000 0.000 946.00 1.730 2.050 2.050 948.00 2.430 4.160 6.210 950.00 3.020 5.450 11.660 952.00 3.770 6.790 18.450 954.00 5.080 8.850 27.300 956.00 5.750 10.830 38.130 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.62'12.0" Round Culvert L= 66.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.62' / 950.27' S= 0.0053 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Discarded 944.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.85 cfs @ 15.61 hrs HW=945.04' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.85 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=944.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond HB-12P: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-POND3 Inflow Area = 19.000 ac, 6.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.81" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 18.76 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 1.280 af Outflow = 0.53 cfs @ 17.04 hrs, Volume= 1.280 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 287.6 min Discarded = 0.53 cfs @ 17.04 hrs, Volume= 1.280 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 9HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 947.61' @ 17.04 hrs Surf.Area= 0.661 ac Storage= 0.876 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.520 ac Storage= 7.705 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 833.2 min ( 1,675.9 - 842.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 11.262 af Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 946.00 0.380 0.000 0.000 0.380 948.00 0.730 1.091 1.091 0.731 950.00 0.990 1.713 2.805 0.993 952.00 1.200 2.187 4.991 1.206 954.00 1.520 2.714 7.705 1.528 956.00 2.050 3.557 11.262 2.060 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.97'12.0" Round Culvert L= 155.5' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 951.97' / 950.88' S= 0.0070 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Discarded 946.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.53 cfs @ 17.04 hrs HW=947.61' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.53 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=946.00' TW=944.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-01P: EAST OF EDMONSON AVE, SOUTH OF COBBLESTONE CT Inflow Area = 453.207 ac, 3.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.04" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 10.04 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.601 af Outflow = 7.88 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 1.601 af, Atten= 22%, Lag= 10.2 min Discarded = 0.20 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 0.099 af Primary = 7.68 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 1.501 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 947.31' @ 12.52 hrs Surf.Area= 0.098 ac Storage= 0.083 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.090 ac Storage= 4.155 af Plug-Flow detention time= 9.5 min calculated for 1.601 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 9.2 min ( 1,019.3 - 1,010.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.00' 7.645 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 10HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 943.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 945.62 0.001 0.001 0.001 946.00 0.020 0.004 0.005 948.00 0.140 0.160 0.165 950.00 0.580 0.720 0.885 952.00 0.800 1.380 2.265 954.00 1.090 1.890 4.155 955.00 1.770 1.430 5.585 956.00 2.350 2.060 7.645 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 945.62'30.0" Round Culvert L= 117.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 945.62' / 945.42' S= 0.0017 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 4.91 sf #2 Device 1 952.62'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 943.00'15.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #5 Discarded 943.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.20 cfs @ 12.52 hrs HW=947.31' (Free Discharge) 5=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.20 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=7.68 cfs @ 12.52 hrs HW=947.31' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 7.68 cfs of 9.84 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 7.68 cfs @ 6.26 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=943.00' TW=944.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-02P: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 13.339 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.71" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 9.62 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.794 af Outflow = 0.91 cfs @ 13.83 hrs, Volume= 0.791 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 90.1 min Primary = 0.91 cfs @ 13.83 hrs, Volume= 0.791 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 961.18' @ 13.83 hrs Surf.Area= 0.418 ac Storage= 0.424 af Plug-Flow detention time= 328.2 min calculated for 0.791 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 326.0 min ( 1,178.9 - 852.9 ) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 11HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 960.00' 3.400 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 960.00 0.300 0.000 0.000 962.00 0.500 0.800 0.800 966.00 0.800 2.600 3.400 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 960.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.91 cfs @ 13.83 hrs HW=961.18' TW=946.35' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.91 cfs @ 4.64 fps) Summary for Pond KF-03P: MIDDLE CHAIN POND Inflow Area = 430.017 ac, 3.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.01" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 3.98 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.280 af Outflow = 2.78 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.280 af, Atten= 30%, Lag= 8.4 min Discarded = 0.18 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af Primary = 2.60 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.223 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 950.81' @ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 0.091 ac Storage= 0.040 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 11.6 min ( 859.9 - 848.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00' 2.710 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.00 0.010 0.000 0.000 952.00 0.210 0.220 0.220 954.00 0.360 0.570 0.790 956.00 0.480 0.840 1.630 958.00 0.600 1.080 2.710 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.00'21.0" Round Culvert L= 100.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.00' / 949.50' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 2.41 sf #2 Discarded 950.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.18 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=950.81' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.18 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.60 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=950.81' TW=947.19' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 2.60 cfs @ 3.53 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 12HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-04P: PROPOSED POND EXPANSION Inflow Area = 425.317 ac, 4.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.05" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 12.96 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 1.733 af Outflow = 1.90 cfs @ 14.44 hrs, Volume= 1.733 af, Atten= 85%, Lag= 104.8 min Discarded = 1.90 cfs @ 14.44 hrs, Volume= 1.733 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.89' @ 14.44 hrs Surf.Area= 0.944 ac Storage= 0.818 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 186.5 min ( 1,062.5 - 876.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 7.900 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 0.900 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.000 1.900 1.900 952.00 1.500 2.500 4.400 954.00 2.000 3.500 7.900 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.00'18.0" Round Culvert L= 100.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.00' / 947.50' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.90 cfs @ 14.44 hrs HW=948.89' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.90 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.00' TW=950.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-05P: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 29.400 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.71" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 16.82 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 1.751 af Outflow = 0.48 cfs @ 20.62 hrs, Volume= 1.751 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 488.8 min Discarded = 0.48 cfs @ 20.62 hrs, Volume= 1.751 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.97' @ 20.62 hrs Surf.Area= 0.597 ac Storage= 1.331 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,347.9 min ( 2,210.1 - 862.2 ) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 13HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 7.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 946.00 0.300 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.500 0.800 0.800 950.00 0.700 1.200 2.000 954.00 0.900 3.200 5.200 956.00 1.000 1.900 7.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.00'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 946.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.48 cfs @ 20.62 hrs HW=948.97' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.48 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=946.00' TW=942.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-06P: UPDATED: NORTH OF FAIRHILL LANE CUL-DE-SAC Inflow Area = 396.217 ac, 4.31% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.27" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 19.46 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 8.767 af Outflow = 1.09 cfs @ 39.03 hrs, Volume= 8.314 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 1,601.8 min Discarded = 1.09 cfs @ 39.03 hrs, Volume= 8.314 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 946.76' @ 39.03 hrs Surf.Area= 1.353 ac Storage= 4.611 af Plug-Flow detention time= 2,127.1 min calculated for 8.314 af (95% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,914.5 min ( 3,713.2 - 1,798.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 942.00' 12.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 942.00 0.140 0.000 0.000 944.00 1.070 1.210 1.210 946.00 1.280 2.350 3.560 948.00 1.470 2.750 6.310 950.00 1.660 3.130 9.440 951.00 1.760 1.710 11.150 952.00 1.880 1.820 12.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.00'15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 14HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Discarded 942.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.09 cfs @ 39.03 hrs HW=946.76' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.09 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=942.00' TW=948.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-07P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET AND EAST OF FAIRHILL LANE Inflow Area = 243.112 ac, 5.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.22" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 16.22 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 4.376 af Outflow = 3.49 cfs @ 13.78 hrs, Volume= 4.349 af, Atten= 78%, Lag= 84.2 min Primary = 3.49 cfs @ 13.78 hrs, Volume= 4.349 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.81' @ 13.78 hrs Surf.Area= 1.114 ac Storage= 0.815 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 2.290 ac Storage= 9.427 af Plug-Flow detention time= 276.9 min calculated for 4.349 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 258.7 min ( 1,574.1 - 1,315.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.02' 9.427 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.02 0.950 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.360 2.287 2.287 952.00 1.770 3.130 5.417 953.00 1.980 1.875 7.292 954.00 2.290 2.135 9.427 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.25'24.0" Round Culvert L= 110.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.25' / 946.99' S= 0.0024 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 948.02'24.0" Round Culvert L= 36.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.02' / 947.25' S= 0.0214 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #3 Device 1 951.75'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 953.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 15HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=3.49 cfs @ 13.78 hrs HW=948.81' TW=944.08' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 3.49 cfs of 7.50 cfs potential flow) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.49 cfs @ 3.03 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.02' TW=942.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-08P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET Inflow Area = 221.712 ac, 6.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.17" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 9.89 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 3.211 af Outflow = 3.54 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 3.101 af, Atten= 64%, Lag= 17.4 min Primary = 3.54 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 3.101 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.85' @ 13.71 hrs Surf.Area= 0.256 ac Storage= 0.295 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 0.610 ac Storage= 2.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= 159.6 min calculated for 3.101 af (97% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 105.9 min ( 1,505.5 - 1,399.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 947.50' 3.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 947.50 0.200 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.200 0.100 0.100 950.00 0.330 0.530 0.630 952.00 0.450 0.780 1.410 954.00 0.610 1.060 2.470 955.00 0.740 0.675 3.145 956.00 0.910 0.825 3.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.50'24.0" Round RCP_Round 24" L= 41.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.44' S= 0.0015 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 944.63'24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 950.39'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 16HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=3.46 cfs @ 12.62 hrs HW=948.75' TW=948.56' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 24" (Outlet Controls 3.46 cfs @ 2.40 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes 3.46 cfs of 6.47 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=947.50' TW=948.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-09P: EXISTING BASIN-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 208.012 ac, 4.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.51" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 48.22 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 8.782 af Outflow = 3.12 cfs @ 20.08 hrs, Volume= 8.782 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 439.6 min Discarded = 1.76 cfs @ 20.08 hrs, Volume= 6.386 af Primary = 1.36 cfs @ 20.08 hrs, Volume= 2.395 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.62' @ 20.08 hrs Surf.Area= 6.981 ac Storage= 4.987 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 930.8 min ( 1,985.3 - 1,054.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00' 48.660 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 952.00 5.200 0.000 0.000 954.00 10.980 16.180 16.180 956.00 21.500 32.480 48.660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.76 cfs @ 20.08 hrs HW=952.62' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.76 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.36 cfs @ 20.08 hrs HW=952.62' TW=948.69' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.36 cfs @ 2.67 fps) Summary for Pond KF-10P: EXISTING BASIN-SO 1/16 COR.,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 108.277 ac, 2.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.55" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 31.57 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 4.936 af Outflow = 1.86 cfs @ 20.37 hrs, Volume= 4.936 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 478.1 min Discarded = 0.77 cfs @ 20.37 hrs, Volume= 2.874 af Primary = 1.09 cfs @ 20.37 hrs, Volume= 2.063 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 17HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 954.59' @ 20.37 hrs Surf.Area= 3.066 ac Storage= 2.288 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 815.2 min ( 1,974.7 - 1,159.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.00' 7.720 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 954.00 1.910 0.000 0.000 956.00 5.810 7.720 7.720 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 954.00'10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 954.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.77 cfs @ 20.37 hrs HW=954.59' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.77 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.09 cfs @ 20.37 hrs HW=954.59' TW=952.62' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.09 cfs @ 2.62 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=954.00' TW=952.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-11P: DEPRESSION/WT SW1/4,NE1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 62.900 ac, 0.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.71" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 40.02 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 3.746 af Outflow = 1.81 cfs @ 16.18 hrs, Volume= 3.746 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 226.6 min Discarded = 0.71 cfs @ 16.18 hrs, Volume= 1.686 af Primary = 1.10 cfs @ 16.18 hrs, Volume= 2.060 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 964.57' @ 16.18 hrs Surf.Area= 2.802 ac Storage= 2.497 af Plug-Flow detention time= 835.5 min calculated for 3.745 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 835.6 min ( 1,693.1 - 857.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 963.80' 27.510 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 18HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 963.80 0.300 0.000 0.000 964.00 1.000 0.130 0.130 966.00 7.380 8.380 8.510 968.00 11.620 19.000 27.510 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 963.80'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 963.80'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.71 cfs @ 16.18 hrs HW=964.57' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.71 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.10 cfs @ 16.18 hrs HW=964.57' TW=954.56' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.10 cfs @ 3.16 fps) Summary for Pond KF-12P: POND & WETLAND SE COR. KLEIN FARMS 3RD Inflow Area = 97.205 ac, 3.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.46" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 29.92 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 3.712 af Outflow = 0.89 cfs @ 21.21 hrs, Volume= 2.840 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 519.4 min Primary = 0.89 cfs @ 21.21 hrs, Volume= 2.840 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.98' @ 21.21 hrs Surf.Area= 4.045 ac Storage= 3.027 af Flood Elev= 952.00' Surf.Area= 9.850 ac Storage= 23.895 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,883.0 min calculated for 2.840 af (77% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,804.3 min ( 2,668.2 - 863.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.30' 48.105 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.30 2.420 0.000 0.000 950.00 6.480 7.565 7.565 952.00 9.850 16.330 23.895 954.00 14.360 24.210 48.105 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.30'12.0" Round RCP_Round 12" L= 152.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.30' / 948.00' S= 0.0020 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.89 cfs @ 21.21 hrs HW=948.98' TW=945.81' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 12" (Barrel Controls 0.89 cfs @ 2.21 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 19HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-13AP: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 37.761 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.71" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 14.62 cfs @ 12.83 hrs, Volume= 2.249 af Outflow = 3.53 cfs @ 14.25 hrs, Volume= 2.249 af, Atten= 76%, Lag= 85.0 min Discarded = 3.53 cfs @ 14.25 hrs, Volume= 2.249 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.49' @ 14.25 hrs Surf.Area= 1.749 ac Storage= 0.846 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 92.0 min ( 977.2 - 885.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 23.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 1.700 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.900 3.600 3.600 952.00 2.000 3.900 7.500 954.00 2.500 4.500 12.000 956.00 2.800 5.300 17.300 958.00 3.000 5.800 23.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=3.53 cfs @ 14.25 hrs HW=948.49' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 3.53 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.00' TW=950.18' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-13P: POND EAST OF FALLON AVE Inflow Area = 53.518 ac, 6.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.17" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 8.85 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.769 af Outflow = 3.35 cfs @ 12.76 hrs, Volume= 0.769 af, Atten= 62%, Lag= 25.5 min Primary = 3.35 cfs @ 12.76 hrs, Volume= 0.769 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.15' @ 12.76 hrs Surf.Area= 0.452 ac Storage= 0.149 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.590 ac Storage= 1.953 af Plug-Flow detention time= 12.8 min calculated for 0.769 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 12.6 min ( 874.2 - 861.7 ) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 20HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.18' 7.253 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.18 0.000 0.000 0.000 951.99 0.001 0.001 0.001 952.00 0.360 0.002 0.003 954.00 1.590 1.950 1.953 955.00 2.220 1.905 3.858 956.00 4.570 3.395 7.253 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.18'12.0" Round Culvert L= 142.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.18' / 949.65' S= 0.0037 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=3.35 cfs @ 12.76 hrs HW=952.15' TW=948.58' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 3.35 cfs @ 4.27 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=950.18' TW=948.30' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 21HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment HB-11S: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-WEST AREA Runoff = 33.48 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 3.318 af, Depth= 1.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.055 72 RESIDENTIAL * 4.000 98 POND 20.055 77 Weighted Average 16.055 80.05% Pervious Area 4.000 19.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 33.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment HB-12S: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-TRIB. TO POND 3 OF ADD. Runoff = 43.13 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 2.786 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 17.700 72 RESIDENTIAL * 1.300 98 POND 19.000 74 Weighted Average 17.700 93.16% Pervious Area 1.300 6.84% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-01S: EAST OF EDMONSON AVE Runoff = 17.43 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.327 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 9.851 72 9.851 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 22HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-02S: NE CORNER OF 85TH ST AND EMONSON AVE Runoff = 23.60 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.797 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 13.339 72 13.339 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-03S: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Runoff = 9.72 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.633 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 4.700 72 4.700 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-04S: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Runoff = 32.22 cfs @ 12.65 hrs, Volume= 3.919 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 29.100 72 29.100 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 23HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 45.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-05S: WEST OF EISELE AVE Runoff = 41.53 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 3.960 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 29.400 72 29.400 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-06S: FARMSTEAD AVE Runoff = 46.88 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 3.569 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 26.500 72 26.500 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-07S: FAIRHILL LANE Runoff = 37.86 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 2.882 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 21.400 72 21.400 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 24HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-08S: WEST OF FALLON AVENUE Runoff = 24.24 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.845 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description 13.700 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 9.590 70.00% Pervious Area 4.110 30.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-09S: AREA SE FALLON & 85TH-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Runoff = 111.39 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 14.624 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 92.835 72 RESIDENTIAL * 6.900 99 POND/WATER 99.735 74 Weighted Average 92.835 93.08% Pervious Area 6.900 6.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 51.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-10S: AREA WEST & SOUTH OF 85TH-UNDEVELOPED Runoff = 74.68 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 6.380 af, Depth= 1.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 25HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description * 43.077 72 RESIDENTIAL * 2.300 98 BASIN/WATER 45.377 73 Weighted Average 43.077 94.93% Pervious Area 2.300 5.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-11S: AREA NW OF FENNING & 85TH Runoff = 98.60 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 8.472 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 62.600 72 RESIDENTIAL * 0.300 98 BASIN 62.900 72 Weighted Average 62.600 99.52% Pervious Area 0.300 0.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-12S: KLEIN FARMS EAST TRIB. AREA TO POND/WETLAN Runoff = 61.75 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 6.406 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.300 72 KLEIN FARMS 3RD-RESIDENTIAL * 4.600 90 POND/WETLAND @ ELEV. 950 * 22.787 72 RES. 43.687 74 Weighted Average 43.687 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 35.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 26HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment KF-13AS: EAST OF FALLON AVE, NORTH OF 85TH STREET Runoff = 36.33 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 5.086 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 37.761 72 RESIDENTIAL 37.761 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 55.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-13S: FALLON DRIVE Runoff = 24.19 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.854 af, Depth= 1.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description 11.515 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 4.242 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 15.757 69 Weighted Average 12.303 78.08% Pervious Area 3.454 21.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.8 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Calculated GIS Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.9 140 0.0070 1.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.8 465 0.0086 4.21 3.30 Pipe Channel, 12.0" Round Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets 19.5 805 Total Summary for Reach 1R: TO TRUNK STORM Inflow Area = 453.207 ac, 3.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.10" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 10.94 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 3.639 af Outflow = 10.94 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 3.639 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 27HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond HB-11P: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-SW QUAD SCHOOL & CR. 117 Inflow Area = 39.055 ac, 13.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.02" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 33.48 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 3.318 af Outflow = 1.44 cfs @ 15.72 hrs, Volume= 3.318 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 194.7 min Discarded = 1.44 cfs @ 15.72 hrs, Volume= 3.318 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 946.15' @ 15.72 hrs Surf.Area= 1.783 ac Storage= 2.364 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 5.080 ac Storage= 27.300 af Plug-Flow detention time= 921.9 min calculated for 3.318 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 922.0 min ( 1,757.8 - 835.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 944.00' 38.130 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 944.00 0.320 0.000 0.000 946.00 1.730 2.050 2.050 948.00 2.430 4.160 6.210 950.00 3.020 5.450 11.660 952.00 3.770 6.790 18.450 954.00 5.080 8.850 27.300 956.00 5.750 10.830 38.130 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.62'12.0" Round Culvert L= 66.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.62' / 950.27' S= 0.0053 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Discarded 944.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.44 cfs @ 15.72 hrs HW=946.15' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.44 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=944.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond HB-12P: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-POND3 Inflow Area = 19.000 ac, 6.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.76" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 43.13 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 2.786 af Outflow = 0.72 cfs @ 19.43 hrs, Volume= 2.786 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 431.3 min Discarded = 0.72 cfs @ 19.43 hrs, Volume= 2.786 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 28HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 949.25' @ 19.43 hrs Surf.Area= 0.893 ac Storage= 2.163 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.520 ac Storage= 7.705 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,455.4 min ( 2,280.4 - 825.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 11.262 af Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 946.00 0.380 0.000 0.000 0.380 948.00 0.730 1.091 1.091 0.731 950.00 0.990 1.713 2.805 0.993 952.00 1.200 2.187 4.991 1.206 954.00 1.520 2.714 7.705 1.528 956.00 2.050 3.557 11.262 2.060 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.97'12.0" Round Culvert L= 155.5' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 951.97' / 950.88' S= 0.0070 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Discarded 946.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.72 cfs @ 19.43 hrs HW=949.25' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.72 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=946.00' TW=944.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-01P: EAST OF EDMONSON AVE, SOUTH OF COBBLESTONE CT Inflow Area = 453.207 ac, 3.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.10" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 24.41 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 3.843 af Outflow = 11.69 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 3.842 af, Atten= 52%, Lag= 22.0 min Discarded = 0.75 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 0.203 af Primary = 10.94 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 3.639 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 949.05' @ 12.69 hrs Surf.Area= 0.371 ac Storage= 0.434 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.090 ac Storage= 4.155 af Plug-Flow detention time= 12.0 min calculated for 3.842 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 11.8 min ( 1,057.5 - 1,045.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.00' 7.645 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 29HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 943.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 945.62 0.001 0.001 0.001 946.00 0.020 0.004 0.005 948.00 0.140 0.160 0.165 950.00 0.580 0.720 0.885 952.00 0.800 1.380 2.265 954.00 1.090 1.890 4.155 955.00 1.770 1.430 5.585 956.00 2.350 2.060 7.645 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 945.62'30.0" Round Culvert L= 117.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 945.62' / 945.42' S= 0.0017 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 4.91 sf #2 Device 1 952.62'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 943.00'15.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #5 Discarded 943.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.75 cfs @ 12.69 hrs HW=949.05' (Free Discharge) 5=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.75 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=10.94 cfs @ 12.69 hrs HW=949.05' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 10.94 cfs of 26.06 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 10.94 cfs @ 8.92 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=943.00' TW=944.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-02P: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 13.339 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.62" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 23.60 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.797 af Outflow = 1.45 cfs @ 14.14 hrs, Volume= 1.793 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 109.7 min Primary = 1.45 cfs @ 14.14 hrs, Volume= 1.793 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 962.59' @ 14.14 hrs Surf.Area= 0.545 ac Storage= 1.111 af Plug-Flow detention time= 447.2 min calculated for 1.793 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 446.3 min ( 1,280.0 - 833.7 ) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 30HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 960.00' 3.400 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 960.00 0.300 0.000 0.000 962.00 0.500 0.800 0.800 966.00 0.800 2.600 3.400 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 960.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.45 cfs @ 14.14 hrs HW=962.59' TW=946.56' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.45 cfs @ 7.37 fps) Summary for Pond KF-03P: MIDDLE CHAIN POND Inflow Area = 430.017 ac, 3.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.02" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 9.72 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.816 af Outflow = 6.59 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.816 af, Atten= 32%, Lag= 8.0 min Discarded = 0.29 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.093 af Primary = 6.30 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.723 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.35' @ 12.38 hrs Surf.Area= 0.145 ac Storage= 0.105 af Plug-Flow detention time= 11.2 min calculated for 0.816 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 11.2 min ( 867.3 - 856.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00' 2.710 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.00 0.010 0.000 0.000 952.00 0.210 0.220 0.220 954.00 0.360 0.570 0.790 956.00 0.480 0.840 1.630 958.00 0.600 1.080 2.710 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.00'21.0" Round Culvert L= 100.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.00' / 949.50' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 2.41 sf #2 Discarded 950.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.29 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=951.35' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.29 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=6.29 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=951.35' TW=948.58' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 6.29 cfs @ 4.37 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 31HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-04P: PROPOSED POND EXPANSION Inflow Area = 425.317 ac, 4.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.11" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 32.22 cfs @ 12.65 hrs, Volume= 3.919 af Outflow = 3.10 cfs @ 15.52 hrs, Volume= 3.920 af, Atten= 90%, Lag= 172.1 min Discarded = 2.26 cfs @ 15.16 hrs, Volume= 3.737 af Primary = 0.85 cfs @ 15.52 hrs, Volume= 0.183 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 950.48' @ 15.16 hrs Surf.Area= 1.121 ac Storage= 2.413 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 485.9 min ( 1,342.7 - 856.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 7.900 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 0.900 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.000 1.900 1.900 952.00 1.500 2.500 4.400 954.00 2.000 3.500 7.900 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.00'18.0" Round Culvert L= 100.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.00' / 947.50' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.26 cfs @ 15.16 hrs HW=950.48' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.26 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.82 cfs @ 15.52 hrs HW=950.48' TW=950.47' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 0.82 cfs @ 0.46 fps) Summary for Pond KF-05P: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 29.400 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.62" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 41.53 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 3.960 af Outflow = 2.07 cfs @ 15.51 hrs, Volume= 3.960 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 184.5 min Discarded = 0.61 cfs @ 15.51 hrs, Volume= 2.861 af Primary = 1.46 cfs @ 15.51 hrs, Volume= 1.099 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.09' @ 15.51 hrs Surf.Area= 0.754 ac Storage= 2.790 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,419.8 min calculated for 3.960 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,420.0 min ( 2,263.0 - 843.0 ) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 32HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 7.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 946.00 0.300 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.500 0.800 0.800 950.00 0.700 1.200 2.000 954.00 0.900 3.200 5.200 956.00 1.000 1.900 7.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.00'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 946.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.61 cfs @ 15.51 hrs HW=951.09' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.61 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.46 cfs @ 15.51 hrs HW=951.09' TW=947.77' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.46 cfs @ 4.18 fps) Summary for Pond KF-06P: UPDATED: NORTH OF FAIRHILL LANE CUL-DE-SAC Inflow Area = 396.217 ac, 4.31% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.62" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 49.90 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 20.531 af Outflow = 1.41 cfs @ 49.70 hrs, Volume= 11.996 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 2,242.4 min Discarded = 1.41 cfs @ 49.70 hrs, Volume= 11.996 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 950.88' @ 49.70 hrs Surf.Area= 1.748 ac Storage= 10.947 af Plug-Flow detention time= 2,960.4 min calculated for 11.996 af (58% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,681.3 min ( 3,963.4 - 2,282.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 942.00' 12.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 942.00 0.140 0.000 0.000 944.00 1.070 1.210 1.210 946.00 1.280 2.350 3.560 948.00 1.470 2.750 6.310 950.00 1.660 3.130 9.440 951.00 1.760 1.710 11.150 952.00 1.880 1.820 12.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.00'15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 33HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Discarded 942.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.41 cfs @ 49.70 hrs HW=950.88' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.41 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=942.00' TW=948.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-07P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET AND EAST OF FAIRHILL LANE Inflow Area = 243.112 ac, 5.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.72" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 46.51 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 14.511 af Outflow = 11.74 cfs @ 13.27 hrs, Volume= 12.975 af, Atten= 75%, Lag= 56.3 min Primary = 11.74 cfs @ 13.27 hrs, Volume= 12.975 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 950.89' @ 49.45 hrs Surf.Area= 1.542 ac Storage= 3.579 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 2.290 ac Storage= 9.427 af Plug-Flow detention time= 911.9 min calculated for 12.975 af (89% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 640.9 min ( 2,376.4 - 1,735.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.02' 9.427 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.02 0.950 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.360 2.287 2.287 952.00 1.770 3.130 5.417 953.00 1.980 1.875 7.292 954.00 2.290 2.135 9.427 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.25'24.0" Round Culvert L= 110.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.25' / 946.99' S= 0.0024 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 948.02'24.0" Round Culvert L= 36.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.02' / 947.25' S= 0.0214 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #3 Device 1 951.75'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 953.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 34HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=11.74 cfs @ 13.27 hrs HW=949.63' TW=945.60' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 11.74 cfs of 13.69 cfs potential flow) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 11.74 cfs @ 4.32 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.02' TW=942.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-08P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET Inflow Area = 221.712 ac, 6.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.65" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 24.26 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 12.078 af Outflow = 11.11 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 11.628 af, Atten= 54%, Lag= 6.9 min Primary = 11.11 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 11.628 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 950.90' @ 48.94 hrs Surf.Area= 0.384 ac Storage= 0.951 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 0.610 ac Storage= 2.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= 268.3 min calculated for 11.628 af (96% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 185.0 min ( 1,959.0 - 1,774.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 947.50' 3.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 947.50 0.200 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.200 0.100 0.100 950.00 0.330 0.530 0.630 952.00 0.450 0.780 1.410 954.00 0.610 1.060 2.470 955.00 0.740 0.675 3.145 956.00 0.910 0.825 3.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.50'24.0" Round RCP_Round 24" L= 41.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.44' S= 0.0015 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 944.63'24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 950.39'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 35HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=10.82 cfs @ 12.42 hrs HW=949.56' TW=949.05' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 24" ( Controls 10.82 cfs) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 10.82 cfs @ 3.44 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=947.50' TW=948.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-09P: EXISTING BASIN-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 208.012 ac, 4.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.23" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 113.06 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 21.383 af Outflow = 6.29 cfs @ 20.62 hrs, Volume= 21.383 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 472.3 min Discarded = 2.43 cfs @ 20.62 hrs, Volume= 11.150 af Primary = 3.86 cfs @ 20.62 hrs, Volume= 10.233 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 953.54' @ 20.62 hrs Surf.Area= 9.655 ac Storage= 12.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,189.3 min ( 2,321.2 - 1,131.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00' 48.660 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 952.00 5.200 0.000 0.000 954.00 10.980 16.180 16.180 956.00 21.500 32.480 48.660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.43 cfs @ 20.62 hrs HW=953.54' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.86 cfs @ 20.62 hrs HW=953.54' TW=949.76' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.86 cfs @ 4.91 fps) Summary for Pond KF-10P: EXISTING BASIN-SO 1/16 COR.,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 108.277 ac, 2.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.24" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 75.57 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 11.204 af Outflow = 6.10 cfs @ 15.21 hrs, Volume= 11.204 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 170.7 min Discarded = 1.05 cfs @ 15.21 hrs, Volume= 4.446 af Primary = 2.25 cfs @ 15.21 hrs, Volume= 5.570 af Secondary = 2.80 cfs @ 15.21 hrs, Volume= 1.188 af MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 36HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 955.15' @ 15.21 hrs Surf.Area= 4.158 ac Storage= 4.451 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 784.1 min ( 2,064.9 - 1,280.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.00' 7.720 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 954.00 1.910 0.000 0.000 956.00 5.810 7.720 7.720 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 954.00'10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 954.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Discarded OutFlow Max=1.05 cfs @ 15.21 hrs HW=955.15' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.05 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.25 cfs @ 15.21 hrs HW=955.15' TW=953.37' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.25 cfs @ 4.13 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=2.80 cfs @ 15.21 hrs HW=955.15' TW=953.37' (Dynamic Tailwater) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.80 cfs @ 0.92 fps) Summary for Pond KF-11P: DEPRESSION/WT SW1/4,NE1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 62.900 ac, 0.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.62" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 98.60 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 8.472 af Outflow = 3.31 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 8.472 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 254.1 min Discarded = 1.40 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 3.648 af Primary = 1.91 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 4.824 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 965.43' @ 16.60 hrs Surf.Area= 5.557 ac Storage= 6.115 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,095.1 min calculated for 8.471 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,095.3 min ( 1,933.6 - 838.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 963.80' 27.510 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 37HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 963.80 0.300 0.000 0.000 964.00 1.000 0.130 0.130 966.00 7.380 8.380 8.510 968.00 11.620 19.000 27.510 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 963.80'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 963.80'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.40 cfs @ 16.60 hrs HW=965.43' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.40 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.91 cfs @ 16.60 hrs HW=965.43' TW=955.12' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.91 cfs @ 5.48 fps) Summary for Pond KF-12P: POND & WETLAND SE COR. KLEIN FARMS 3RD Inflow Area = 97.205 ac, 3.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.02" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 65.56 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 8.260 af Outflow = 2.20 cfs @ 17.79 hrs, Volume= 2.887 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 316.5 min Primary = 2.20 cfs @ 17.79 hrs, Volume= 2.887 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 949.88' @ 90.85 hrs Surf.Area= 6.191 ac Storage= 7.027 af Flood Elev= 952.00' Surf.Area= 9.850 ac Storage= 23.895 af Plug-Flow detention time= 3,353.1 min calculated for 2.887 af (35% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 3,239.0 min ( 4,097.8 - 858.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.30' 48.105 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.30 2.420 0.000 0.000 950.00 6.480 7.565 7.565 952.00 9.850 16.330 23.895 954.00 14.360 24.210 48.105 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.30'12.0" Round RCP_Round 12" L= 152.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.30' / 948.00' S= 0.0020 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.19 cfs @ 17.79 hrs HW=949.76' TW=949.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 12" (Outlet Controls 2.19 cfs @ 2.79 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 38HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-13AP: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 37.761 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.62" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 36.33 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 5.086 af Outflow = 3.76 cfs @ 15.36 hrs, Volume= 5.086 af, Atten= 90%, Lag= 155.0 min Discarded = 3.76 cfs @ 15.36 hrs, Volume= 5.086 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 949.65' @ 15.36 hrs Surf.Area= 1.865 ac Storage= 2.934 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 352.1 min ( 1,218.1 - 866.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 23.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 1.700 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.900 3.600 3.600 952.00 2.000 3.900 7.500 954.00 2.500 4.500 12.000 956.00 2.800 5.300 17.300 958.00 3.000 5.800 23.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=3.76 cfs @ 15.36 hrs HW=949.65' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 3.76 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.00' TW=950.18' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-13P: POND EAST OF FALLON AVE Inflow Area = 53.518 ac, 6.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.42" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 24.19 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.854 af Outflow = 3.97 cfs @ 13.19 hrs, Volume= 1.854 af, Atten= 84%, Lag= 53.0 min Primary = 3.97 cfs @ 13.19 hrs, Volume= 1.854 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.75' @ 13.19 hrs Surf.Area= 0.823 ac Storage= 0.736 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.590 ac Storage= 1.953 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 72.0 min ( 911.4 - 839.5 ) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 39HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.18' 7.253 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.18 0.000 0.000 0.000 951.99 0.001 0.001 0.001 952.00 0.360 0.002 0.003 954.00 1.590 1.950 1.953 955.00 2.220 1.905 3.858 956.00 4.570 3.395 7.253 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.18'12.0" Round Culvert L= 142.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.18' / 949.65' S= 0.0037 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=3.97 cfs @ 13.19 hrs HW=952.75' TW=949.23' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 3.97 cfs @ 5.05 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=950.18' TW=948.30' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 40HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment HB-11S: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-WEST AREA Runoff = 72.13 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 7.101 af, Depth= 4.25" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.055 72 RESIDENTIAL * 4.000 98 POND 20.055 77 Weighted Average 16.055 80.05% Pervious Area 4.000 19.95% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 33.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment HB-12S: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-TRIB. TO POND 3 OF ADD. Runoff = 97.16 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 6.221 af, Depth= 3.93" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 17.700 72 RESIDENTIAL * 1.300 98 POND 19.000 74 Weighted Average 17.700 93.16% Pervious Area 1.300 6.84% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-01S: EAST OF EDMONSON AVE Runoff = 41.11 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 3.053 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 9.851 72 9.851 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 41HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-02S: NE CORNER OF 85TH ST AND EMONSON AVE Runoff = 55.67 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 4.133 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 13.339 72 13.339 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-03S: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Runoff = 22.77 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 1.456 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 4.700 72 4.700 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-04S: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Runoff = 76.30 cfs @ 12.64 hrs, Volume= 9.017 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 29.100 72 29.100 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 42HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 45.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-05S: WEST OF EISELE AVE Runoff = 98.27 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 9.110 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 29.400 72 29.400 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-06S: FARMSTEAD AVE Runoff = 110.59 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 8.212 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 26.500 72 26.500 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-07S: FAIRHILL LANE Runoff = 89.31 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 6.631 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 21.400 72 21.400 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 43HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-08S: WEST OF FALLON AVENUE Runoff = 57.17 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 4.245 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description 13.700 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 9.590 70.00% Pervious Area 4.110 30.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-09S: AREA SE FALLON & 85TH-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Runoff = 253.64 cfs @ 12.70 hrs, Volume= 32.655 af, Depth= 3.93" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 92.835 72 RESIDENTIAL * 6.900 99 POND/WATER 99.735 74 Weighted Average 92.835 93.08% Pervious Area 6.900 6.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 51.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-10S: AREA WEST & SOUTH OF 85TH-UNDEVELOPED Runoff = 173.14 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 14.458 af, Depth= 3.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 44HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description * 43.077 72 RESIDENTIAL * 2.300 98 BASIN/WATER 45.377 73 Weighted Average 43.077 94.93% Pervious Area 2.300 5.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-11S: AREA NW OF FENNING & 85TH Runoff = 233.35 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 19.491 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 62.600 72 RESIDENTIAL * 0.300 98 BASIN 62.900 72 Weighted Average 62.600 99.52% Pervious Area 0.300 0.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-12S: KLEIN FARMS EAST TRIB. AREA TO POND/WETLAN Runoff = 140.91 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 14.304 af, Depth= 3.93" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.300 72 KLEIN FARMS 3RD-RESIDENTIAL * 4.600 90 POND/WETLAND @ ELEV. 950 * 22.787 72 RES. 43.687 74 Weighted Average 43.687 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 35.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 45HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment KF-13AS: EAST OF FALLON AVE, NORTH OF 85TH STREET Runoff = 86.47 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 11.701 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 37.761 72 RESIDENTIAL 37.761 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 55.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-13S: FALLON DRIVE Runoff = 60.88 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 4.475 af, Depth= 3.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description 11.515 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 4.242 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 15.757 69 Weighted Average 12.303 78.08% Pervious Area 3.454 21.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.8 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Calculated GIS Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.9 140 0.0070 1.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.8 465 0.0086 4.21 3.30 Pipe Channel, 12.0" Round Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets 19.5 805 Total Summary for Reach 1R: TO TRUNK STORM Inflow Area = 453.207 ac, 3.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.68" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 13.83 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 25.580 af Outflow = 13.83 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 25.580 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 46HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond HB-11P: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-SW QUAD SCHOOL & CR. 117 Inflow Area = 39.055 ac, 13.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.21" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 72.13 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 7.178 af Outflow = 1.87 cfs @ 18.62 hrs, Volume= 7.178 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 370.0 min Discarded = 1.87 cfs @ 18.62 hrs, Volume= 7.178 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 947.70' @ 18.62 hrs Surf.Area= 2.323 ac Storage= 5.577 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 5.080 ac Storage= 27.300 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,492.7 min ( 2,317.5 - 824.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 944.00' 38.130 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 944.00 0.320 0.000 0.000 946.00 1.730 2.050 2.050 948.00 2.430 4.160 6.210 950.00 3.020 5.450 11.660 952.00 3.770 6.790 18.450 954.00 5.080 8.850 27.300 956.00 5.750 10.830 38.130 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.62'12.0" Round Culvert L= 66.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.62' / 950.27' S= 0.0053 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Discarded 944.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.87 cfs @ 18.62 hrs HW=947.70' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.87 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=944.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond HB-12P: KLEIN FARMS 3RD-POND3 Inflow Area = 19.000 ac, 6.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.93" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 97.16 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 6.221 af Outflow = 1.15 cfs @ 20.40 hrs, Volume= 6.221 af, Atten= 99%, Lag= 490.1 min Discarded = 0.99 cfs @ 20.40 hrs, Volume= 6.144 af Primary = 0.16 cfs @ 20.40 hrs, Volume= 0.077 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 47HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 952.17' @ 20.40 hrs Surf.Area= 1.228 ac Storage= 5.228 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.520 ac Storage= 7.705 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 2,462.6 min ( 3,271.1 - 808.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 11.262 af Custom Stage Data (Conic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acres) 946.00 0.380 0.000 0.000 0.380 948.00 0.730 1.091 1.091 0.731 950.00 0.990 1.713 2.805 0.993 952.00 1.200 2.187 4.991 1.206 954.00 1.520 2.714 7.705 1.528 956.00 2.050 3.557 11.262 2.060 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.97'12.0" Round Culvert L= 155.5' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 951.97' / 950.88' S= 0.0070 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Discarded 946.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.99 cfs @ 20.40 hrs HW=952.17' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.99 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.16 cfs @ 20.40 hrs HW=952.17' TW=947.68' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.16 cfs @ 2.10 fps) Summary for Pond KF-01P: EAST OF EDMONSON AVE, SOUTH OF COBBLESTONE CT Inflow Area = 453.207 ac, 3.77% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.71" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 54.14 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 26.851 af Outflow = 15.25 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 26.851 af, Atten= 72%, Lag= 37.1 min Discarded = 1.41 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 1.271 af Primary = 13.83 cfs @ 12.92 hrs, Volume= 25.580 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.10' @ 12.92 hrs Surf.Area= 0.701 ac Storage= 1.591 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.090 ac Storage= 4.155 af Plug-Flow detention time= 21.6 min calculated for 26.851 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 21.5 min ( 1,739.7 - 1,718.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.00' 7.645 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 48HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 943.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 945.62 0.001 0.001 0.001 946.00 0.020 0.004 0.005 948.00 0.140 0.160 0.165 950.00 0.580 0.720 0.885 952.00 0.800 1.380 2.265 954.00 1.090 1.890 4.155 955.00 1.770 1.430 5.585 956.00 2.350 2.060 7.645 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 945.62'30.0" Round Culvert L= 117.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 945.62' / 945.42' S= 0.0017 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 4.91 sf #2 Device 1 952.62'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 943.00'15.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #5 Discarded 943.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.41 cfs @ 12.92 hrs HW=951.10' (Free Discharge) 5=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.41 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=13.83 cfs @ 12.92 hrs HW=951.10' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 13.83 cfs of 43.72 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 13.83 cfs @ 11.27 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=943.00' TW=944.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-02P: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 13.339 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.72" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 55.67 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 4.133 af Outflow = 2.14 cfs @ 15.24 hrs, Volume= 4.129 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 177.0 min Primary = 2.14 cfs @ 15.24 hrs, Volume= 4.129 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 965.36' @ 15.24 hrs Surf.Area= 0.752 ac Storage= 2.905 af Plug-Flow detention time= 718.0 min calculated for 4.129 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 717.7 min ( 1,534.1 - 816.3 ) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 49HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 960.00' 3.400 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 960.00 0.300 0.000 0.000 962.00 0.500 0.800 0.800 966.00 0.800 2.600 3.400 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 960.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=2.14 cfs @ 15.24 hrs HW=965.36' TW=950.58' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.14 cfs @ 10.89 fps) Summary for Pond KF-03P: MIDDLE CHAIN POND Inflow Area = 430.017 ac, 3.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.58" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 22.77 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 20.808 af Outflow = 12.31 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 20.808 af, Atten= 46%, Lag= 16.8 min Discarded = 0.48 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 1.138 af Primary = 11.84 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 19.670 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.34' @ 12.43 hrs Surf.Area= 0.236 ac Storage= 0.297 af Plug-Flow detention time= 11.6 min calculated for 20.806 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 11.6 min ( 1,914.0 - 1,902.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00' 2.710 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.00 0.010 0.000 0.000 952.00 0.210 0.220 0.220 954.00 0.360 0.570 0.790 956.00 0.480 0.840 1.630 958.00 0.600 1.080 2.710 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.00'21.0" Round Culvert L= 100.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.00' / 949.50' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 2.41 sf #2 Discarded 950.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.48 cfs @ 12.43 hrs HW=952.34' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.48 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=11.84 cfs @ 12.52 hrs HW=952.28' TW=950.61' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 11.84 cfs @ 4.95 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 50HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-04P: PROPOSED POND EXPANSION Inflow Area = 425.317 ac, 4.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.05" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 76.30 cfs @ 12.64 hrs, Volume= 37.040 af Outflow = 10.85 cfs @ 14.27 hrs, Volume= 37.040 af, Atten= 86%, Lag= 97.3 min Discarded = 3.35 cfs @ 14.07 hrs, Volume= 17.689 af Primary = 7.50 cfs @ 14.31 hrs, Volume= 19.351 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.65' @ 14.07 hrs Surf.Area= 1.661 ac Storage= 5.420 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 396.4 min ( 2,481.4 - 2,085.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 7.900 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 0.900 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.000 1.900 1.900 952.00 1.500 2.500 4.400 954.00 2.000 3.500 7.900 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.00'18.0" Round Culvert L= 100.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.00' / 947.50' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=3.35 cfs @ 14.07 hrs HW=952.65' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 3.35 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=7.51 cfs @ 14.31 hrs HW=952.63' TW=951.70' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 7.51 cfs @ 4.25 fps) Summary for Pond KF-05P: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 29.400 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.72" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 98.27 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 9.110 af Outflow = 4.50 cfs @ 14.05 hrs, Volume= 9.092 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 97.3 min Discarded = 0.78 cfs @ 15.50 hrs, Volume= 4.681 af Primary = 3.72 cfs @ 14.05 hrs, Volume= 4.410 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 955.44' @ 15.50 hrs Surf.Area= 0.972 ac Storage= 6.545 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,559.9 min ( 2,385.5 - 825.6 ) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 51HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 7.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 946.00 0.300 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.500 0.800 0.800 950.00 0.700 1.200 2.000 954.00 0.900 3.200 5.200 956.00 1.000 1.900 7.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.00'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 946.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.78 cfs @ 15.50 hrs HW=955.44' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.78 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.72 cfs @ 14.05 hrs HW=955.24' TW=950.34' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.72 cfs @ 10.66 fps) Summary for Pond KF-06P: UPDATED: NORTH OF FAIRHILL LANE CUL-DE-SAC Inflow Area = 396.217 ac, 4.31% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.56" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 124.98 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 51.642 af Outflow = 10.71 cfs @ 19.71 hrs, Volume= 40.917 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 444.1 min Discarded = 1.52 cfs @ 17.50 hrs, Volume= 12.895 af Primary = 9.20 cfs @ 19.71 hrs, Volume= 28.022 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.29' @ 22.09 hrs Surf.Area= 1.880 ac Storage= 12.970 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,236.1 min calculated for 40.913 af (79% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 563.0 min ( 2,939.4 - 2,376.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 942.00' 12.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 942.00 0.140 0.000 0.000 944.00 1.070 1.210 1.210 946.00 1.280 2.350 3.560 948.00 1.470 2.750 6.310 950.00 1.660 3.130 9.440 951.00 1.760 1.710 11.150 952.00 1.880 1.820 12.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.00'15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 52HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Discarded 942.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.52 cfs @ 17.50 hrs HW=952.01' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.52 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=8.91 cfs @ 19.71 hrs HW=952.22' TW=952.21' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 8.91 cfs @ 0.49 fps) Summary for Pond KF-07P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET AND EAST OF FAIRHILL LANE Inflow Area = 243.112 ac, 5.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.90" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 104.65 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 38.401 af Outflow = 23.17 cfs @ 13.27 hrs, Volume= 35.033 af, Atten= 78%, Lag= 57.8 min Primary = 23.17 cfs @ 13.27 hrs, Volume= 35.033 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.51' @ 22.84 hrs Surf.Area= 1.878 ac Storage= 6.351 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 2.290 ac Storage= 9.427 af Plug-Flow detention time= 605.0 min calculated for 35.033 af (91% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 332.8 min ( 2,600.1 - 2,267.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.02' 9.427 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.02 0.950 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.360 2.287 2.287 952.00 1.770 3.130 5.417 953.00 1.980 1.875 7.292 954.00 2.290 2.135 9.427 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.25'24.0" Round Culvert L= 110.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.25' / 946.99' S= 0.0024 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 948.02'24.0" Round Culvert L= 36.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.02' / 947.25' S= 0.0214 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #3 Device 1 951.75'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 953.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 53HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=23.15 cfs @ 13.27 hrs HW=951.41' TW=948.99' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 23.15 cfs @ 7.37 fps) 2=Culvert (Passes 23.15 cfs of 23.40 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.02' TW=942.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-08P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET Inflow Area = 221.712 ac, 6.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.77" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 57.61 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 32.665 af Outflow = 17.98 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 31.770 af, Atten= 69%, Lag= 15.2 min Primary = 17.98 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 31.770 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.69' @ 22.79 hrs Surf.Area= 0.505 ac Storage= 1.739 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 0.610 ac Storage= 2.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= 199.6 min calculated for 31.767 af (97% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 108.2 min ( 2,570.1 - 2,461.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 947.50' 3.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 947.50 0.200 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.200 0.100 0.100 950.00 0.330 0.530 0.630 952.00 0.450 0.780 1.410 954.00 0.610 1.060 2.470 955.00 0.740 0.675 3.145 956.00 0.910 0.825 3.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.50'24.0" Round RCP_Round 24" L= 41.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.44' S= 0.0015 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 944.63'24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 950.39'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 54HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=17.82 cfs @ 12.55 hrs HW=952.22' TW=950.84' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 24" (Inlet Controls 17.82 cfs @ 5.67 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 17.82 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 71.28 cfs potential flow) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=947.50' TW=948.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-09P: EXISTING BASIN-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 208.012 ac, 4.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.96" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 299.62 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 51.289 af Outflow = 10.37 cfs @ 19.01 hrs, Volume= 51.290 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 375.8 min Discarded = 4.28 cfs @ 21.19 hrs, Volume= 22.870 af Primary = 6.12 cfs @ 19.01 hrs, Volume= 28.420 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 955.14' @ 21.19 hrs Surf.Area= 16.959 ac Storage= 34.641 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,783.7 min calculated for 51.285 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,783.6 min ( 2,940.7 - 1,157.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00' 48.660 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 952.00 5.200 0.000 0.000 954.00 10.980 16.180 16.180 956.00 21.500 32.480 48.660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=4.28 cfs @ 21.19 hrs HW=955.14' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 4.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=6.12 cfs @ 19.01 hrs HW=955.12' TW=952.50' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 6.12 cfs @ 7.79 fps) Summary for Pond KF-10P: EXISTING BASIN-SO 1/16 COR.,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 108.277 ac, 2.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.80" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 174.93 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 25.290 af Outflow = 50.84 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 25.290 af, Atten= 71%, Lag= 32.0 min Discarded = 1.42 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 6.655 af Primary = 3.20 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 7.635 af Secondary = 46.22 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 11.000 af MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 55HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 955.91' @ 12.89 hrs Surf.Area= 5.626 ac Storage= 7.357 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 597.1 min ( 2,103.2 - 1,506.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.00' 7.720 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 954.00 1.910 0.000 0.000 956.00 5.810 7.720 7.720 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 954.00'10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 954.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Discarded OutFlow Max=1.42 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=955.91' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.42 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.20 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=955.91' TW=953.80' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.20 cfs @ 5.88 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=46.21 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=955.91' TW=953.80' (Dynamic Tailwater) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 46.21 cfs @ 2.55 fps) Summary for Pond KF-11P: DEPRESSION/WT SW1/4,NE1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 62.900 ac, 0.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.72" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 233.35 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 19.491 af Outflow = 4.96 cfs @ 18.82 hrs, Volume= 19.491 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 387.2 min Discarded = 2.25 cfs @ 18.82 hrs, Volume= 8.660 af Primary = 2.71 cfs @ 18.82 hrs, Volume= 10.832 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 966.73' @ 18.82 hrs Surf.Area= 8.924 ac Storage= 15.428 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,610.5 min calculated for 19.490 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,610.8 min ( 2,431.8 - 821.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 963.80' 27.510 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 56HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 963.80 0.300 0.000 0.000 964.00 1.000 0.130 0.130 966.00 7.380 8.380 8.510 968.00 11.620 19.000 27.510 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 963.80'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 963.80'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.25 cfs @ 18.82 hrs HW=966.73' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.25 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.71 cfs @ 18.82 hrs HW=966.73' TW=955.24' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.71 cfs @ 7.76 fps) Summary for Pond KF-12P: POND & WETLAND SE COR. KLEIN FARMS 3RD Inflow Area = 97.205 ac, 3.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.32" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 145.71 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 18.778 af Outflow = 2.87 cfs @ 13.28 hrs, Volume= 3.986 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 47.4 min Primary = 2.87 cfs @ 13.28 hrs, Volume= 3.986 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.33' @ 25.99 hrs Surf.Area= 8.726 ac Storage= 18.449 af Flood Elev= 952.00' Surf.Area= 9.850 ac Storage= 23.895 af Plug-Flow detention time= 4,079.9 min calculated for 3.986 af (21% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 3,926.0 min ( 4,803.5 - 877.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.30' 48.105 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.30 2.420 0.000 0.000 950.00 6.480 7.565 7.565 952.00 9.850 16.330 23.895 954.00 14.360 24.210 48.105 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.30'12.0" Round RCP_Round 12" L= 152.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.30' / 948.00' S= 0.0020 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.85 cfs @ 13.28 hrs HW=950.30' TW=949.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 12" (Outlet Controls 2.85 cfs @ 3.63 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 57HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-13AP: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 37.761 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.72" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 86.47 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 11.701 af Outflow = 4.23 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 11.702 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 229.9 min Discarded = 4.23 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 11.702 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.39' @ 16.60 hrs Surf.Area= 2.097 ac Storage= 8.298 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 884.4 min ( 1,733.1 - 848.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 23.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 1.700 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.900 3.600 3.600 952.00 2.000 3.900 7.500 954.00 2.500 4.500 12.000 956.00 2.800 5.300 17.300 958.00 3.000 5.800 23.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=4.23 cfs @ 16.60 hrs HW=952.39' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 4.23 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.00' TW=950.18' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-13P: POND EAST OF FALLON AVE Inflow Area = 53.518 ac, 6.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.00" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 60.88 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 4.475 af Outflow = 5.19 cfs @ 13.67 hrs, Volume= 4.474 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 82.8 min Primary = 5.19 cfs @ 13.67 hrs, Volume= 4.474 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 954.25' @ 13.67 hrs Surf.Area= 1.745 ac Storage= 2.420 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.590 ac Storage= 1.953 af Plug-Flow detention time= 218.0 min calculated for 4.474 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 217.9 min ( 1,038.5 - 820.6 ) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"REVISED MONT CSWMP 2020 Updates Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 58HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.18' 7.253 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.18 0.000 0.000 0.000 951.99 0.001 0.001 0.001 952.00 0.360 0.002 0.003 954.00 1.590 1.950 1.953 955.00 2.220 1.905 3.858 956.00 4.570 3.395 7.253 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.18'12.0" Round Culvert L= 142.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.18' / 949.65' S= 0.0037 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=5.19 cfs @ 13.67 hrs HW=954.25' TW=950.42' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 5.19 cfs @ 6.61 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=950.18' TW=948.30' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2S P2 4S P3 5S P4 KF-02S NE CORNER OF 85TH ST AND EMONSON AVE KF-05S WEST OF EISELE AVE (P1) KF-06S FARMSTEAD AVE KF-07S FAIRHILL LANE KF-08S WEST OF FALLON AVENUE KF-09S AREA SE FALLON & 85TH-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 KF-10S AREA WEST & SOUTH OF 85TH-UNDEVELOPED KF-11S AREA NW OF FENNING & 85TH KF-12S KLEIN FARMS EAST TRIB. AREA TO POND/WETLAN KF-13AS EAST OF FALLON AVE, NORTH OF 85TH STREET KF-13S FALLON DRIVE 4P Pond #1 5P Ditch - Outlet to Trunk Storm 12P Pond #2 w/Infil Basin #2 KF-06P UPDATED: NORTH OF FAIRHILL LANE CUL-DE-SAC KF-07P POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET AND EAST OF FAIRHILL LANE KF-08P POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET KF-09P EXISTING BASIN-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 KF-10P EXISTING BASIN-SO 1/16 COR.,NW1/4,SEC 24 KF-11P DEPRESSION/WT SW1/4,NE1/4,SEC 24 KF-12P POND & WETLAND SE COR. KLEIN FARMS 3RD KF-13AP PROPOSED POND KF-13P POND EAST OF FALLON AVE Routing Diagram for MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc., Printed 12/13/2024 HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link APPENDIX B MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: P2 Runoff = 4.45 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.563 af, Depth= 0.28" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 7.860 98 Impervious * 0.250 98 Existing Impervious 15.830 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.380 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A 24.320 60 Weighted Average 16.210 66.65% Pervious Area 8.110 33.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.7 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 2.3 290 0.0200 2.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 4.3 1,390 0.0070 5.39 9.52 Pipe Channel, 18.0" Round Area= 1.8 sf Perim= 4.7' r= 0.38' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished 17.3 1,780 Total Summary for Subcatchment 4S: P3 Runoff = 4.52 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.392 af, Depth= 0.37" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 3.700 98 Impervious 7.680 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.080 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A * 0.310 98 Existing Impervious 12.770 63 Weighted Average 8.760 68.60% Pervious Area 4.010 31.40% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.1 100 0.0300 0.18 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.1 156 0.0255 2.40 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 896 0.0150 7.89 13.94 Pipe Channel, 18.0" Round Area= 1.8 sf Perim= 4.7' r= 0.38' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished 12.1 1,152 Total Summary for Subcatchment 5S: P4 Runoff = 0.01 cfs @ 18.58 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Depth= 0.01" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.190 98 Existing Impervious * 0.250 98 Impervious 3.830 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 4.270 45 Weighted Average 3.830 89.70% Pervious Area 0.440 10.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.7 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.1 240 0.0580 3.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 11.8 340 Total Summary for Subcatchment KF-02S: NE CORNER OF 85TH ST AND EMONSON AVE Runoff = 0.02 cfs @ 19.58 hrs, Volume= 0.009 af, Depth= 0.01" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 2.500 98 Existing Impervious 3.800 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 10.000 32 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG A 16.300 44 Weighted Average 13.800 84.66% Pervious Area 2.500 15.34% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-05S: WEST OF EISELE AVE (P1) Runoff = 17.76 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 1.848 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 31.030 72 31.030 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-06S: FARMSTEAD AVE Runoff = 19.12 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.578 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 26.500 72 26.500 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-07S: FAIRHILL LANE Runoff = 15.44 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 1.274 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 21.400 72 21.400 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 5HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-08S: WEST OF FALLON AVENUE Runoff = 9.88 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.816 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description 13.700 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 9.590 70.00% Pervious Area 4.110 30.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-09S: AREA SE FALLON & 85TH-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Runoff = 47.85 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 6.719 af, Depth= 0.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 92.835 72 RESIDENTIAL * 6.900 99 POND/WATER 99.735 74 Weighted Average 92.835 93.08% Pervious Area 6.900 6.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 51.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-10S: AREA WEST & SOUTH OF 85TH-UNDEVELOPED Runoff = 31.24 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 2.876 af, Depth= 0.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 6HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description * 43.077 72 RESIDENTIAL * 2.300 98 BASIN/WATER 45.377 73 Weighted Average 43.077 94.93% Pervious Area 2.300 5.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-11S: AREA NW OF FENNING & 85TH Runoff = 40.02 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 3.746 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 62.600 72 RESIDENTIAL * 0.300 98 BASIN 62.900 72 Weighted Average 62.600 99.52% Pervious Area 0.300 0.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-12S: KLEIN FARMS EAST TRIB. AREA TO POND/WETLAN Runoff = 26.58 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 2.943 af, Depth= 0.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.300 72 KLEIN FARMS 3RD-RESIDENTIAL * 4.600 90 POND/WETLAND @ ELEV. 950 * 22.787 72 RES. 43.687 74 Weighted Average 43.687 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 35.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 7HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment KF-13AS: EAST OF FALLON AVE, NORTH OF 85TH STREET Runoff = 14.62 cfs @ 12.83 hrs, Volume= 2.249 af, Depth= 0.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 37.761 72 RESIDENTIAL 37.761 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 55.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-13S: FALLON DRIVE Runoff = 8.85 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.769 af, Depth= 0.59" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description 11.515 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 4.242 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 15.757 69 Weighted Average 12.303 78.08% Pervious Area 3.454 21.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.8 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Calculated GIS Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.9 140 0.0070 1.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.8 465 0.0086 4.21 3.30 Pipe Channel, 12.0" Round Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets 19.5 805 Total Summary for Pond 4P: Pond #1 Inflow Area = 451.237 ac, 7.02% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.01" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 4.52 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.392 af Outflow = 0.21 cfs @ 17.66 hrs, Volume= 0.354 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 325.1 min Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 17.66 hrs, Volume= 0.354 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 8HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 946.77' @ 17.66 hrs Surf.Area= 41,658 sf Storage= 10,934 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 1,088.1 min calculated for 0.354 af (91% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,045.2 min ( 1,923.2 - 878.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.50' 219,726 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.50 40,725 0 0 948.00 46,000 65,044 65,044 950.00 53,380 99,380 164,424 951.00 57,225 55,303 219,726 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 136.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.50' / 946.20' S= 0.0022 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 944.00'18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 951.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.21 cfs @ 17.66 hrs HW=946.77' TW=946.22' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.21 cfs @ 1.48 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes 0.21 cfs of 4.38 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 5P: Ditch - Outlet to Trunk Storm Inflow Area = 455.507 ac, 7.05% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.01" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 0.21 cfs @ 17.79 hrs, Volume= 0.359 af Outflow = 0.21 cfs @ 18.44 hrs, Volume= 0.356 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 38.9 min Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 18.44 hrs, Volume= 0.356 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 946.22' @ 18.44 hrs Surf.Area= 3,943 sf Storage= 823 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 117.2 min calculated for 0.356 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 81.4 min ( 1,994.9 - 1,913.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 64,775 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 3,420 0 0 948.00 8,100 11,520 11,520 950.00 13,190 21,290 32,810 952.00 18,775 31,965 64,775 MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 9HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.00'15.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.00' / 945.76' S= 0.0080 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.21 cfs @ 18.44 hrs HW=946.22' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.21 cfs @ 2.17 fps) Summary for Pond 12P: Pond #2 w/Infil Basin #2 Inflow Area = 438.467 ac, 6.31% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.02" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 4.45 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.572 af Outflow = 0.86 cfs @ 13.77 hrs, Volume= 0.572 af, Atten= 81%, Lag= 84.6 min Discarded = 0.86 cfs @ 13.77 hrs, Volume= 0.572 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 945.21' @ 13.77 hrs Surf.Area= 37,033 sf Storage= 7,798 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 80.6 min ( 983.7 - 903.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 945.00' 520,787 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 945.00 36,170 0 0 946.00 40,220 38,195 38,195 946.70 66,250 37,265 75,460 948.00 74,870 91,728 167,187 950.00 88,300 163,170 330,357 952.00 102,130 190,430 520,787 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.70'18.0" Round Culvert L= 165.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.70' / 946.50' S= 0.0012 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 945.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.86 cfs @ 13.77 hrs HW=945.21' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.86 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=945.00' TW=946.50' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 10HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-06P: UPDATED: NORTH OF FAIRHILL LANE CUL-DE-SAC Inflow Area = 397.847 ac, 4.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.32" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 35.04 cfs @ 12.40 hrs, Volume= 10.615 af Outflow = 1.18 cfs @ 37.18 hrs, Volume= 9.453 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 1,487.1 min Discarded = 1.18 cfs @ 37.18 hrs, Volume= 9.453 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 947.94' @ 37.18 hrs Surf.Area= 1.465 ac Storage= 6.231 af Plug-Flow detention time= 2,545.3 min calculated for 9.452 af (89% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 2,199.2 min ( 3,836.2 - 1,637.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 942.00' 14.920 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 942.00 0.140 0.000 0.000 944.00 1.070 1.210 1.210 946.00 1.280 2.350 3.560 948.00 1.470 2.750 6.310 950.00 1.660 3.130 9.440 951.00 1.760 1.710 11.150 952.00 1.880 1.820 12.970 953.00 2.020 1.950 14.920 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.00'15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Discarded 942.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.18 cfs @ 37.18 hrs HW=947.94' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.18 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=942.00' TW=945.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-07P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET AND EAST OF FAIRHILL LANE Inflow Area = 243.112 ac, 5.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.22" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 16.22 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 4.376 af Outflow = 3.49 cfs @ 13.78 hrs, Volume= 4.349 af, Atten= 78%, Lag= 84.2 min Primary = 3.49 cfs @ 13.78 hrs, Volume= 4.349 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 11HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 948.81' @ 13.78 hrs Surf.Area= 1.114 ac Storage= 0.815 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 2.290 ac Storage= 9.427 af Plug-Flow detention time= 279.5 min calculated for 4.349 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 261.2 min ( 1,577.2 - 1,316.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.02' 9.427 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.02 0.950 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.360 2.287 2.287 952.00 1.770 3.130 5.417 953.00 1.980 1.875 7.292 954.00 2.290 2.135 9.427 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.25'24.0" Round Culvert L= 110.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.25' / 946.99' S= 0.0024 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 948.02'24.0" Round Culvert L= 36.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.02' / 947.25' S= 0.0214 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #3 Device 1 951.75'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 953.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=3.49 cfs @ 13.78 hrs HW=948.81' TW=945.06' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 3.49 cfs of 7.50 cfs potential flow) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.49 cfs @ 3.03 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.02' TW=942.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-08P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET Inflow Area = 221.712 ac, 6.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.17" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 9.89 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 3.211 af Outflow = 3.54 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 3.101 af, Atten= 64%, Lag= 17.4 min Primary = 3.54 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 3.101 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 12HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 948.85' @ 13.71 hrs Surf.Area= 0.256 ac Storage= 0.295 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 0.610 ac Storage= 2.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= 160.4 min calculated for 3.101 af (97% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 106.7 min ( 1,506.3 - 1,399.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 947.50' 3.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 947.50 0.200 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.200 0.100 0.100 950.00 0.330 0.530 0.630 952.00 0.450 0.780 1.410 954.00 0.610 1.060 2.470 955.00 0.740 0.675 3.145 956.00 0.910 0.825 3.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.50'24.0" Round RCP_Round 24" L= 41.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.44' S= 0.0015 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 944.63'24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 950.39'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=3.46 cfs @ 12.62 hrs HW=948.75' TW=948.56' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 24" (Outlet Controls 3.46 cfs @ 2.40 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes 3.46 cfs of 6.47 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=947.50' TW=948.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-09P: EXISTING BASIN-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 208.012 ac, 4.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.51" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 48.22 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 8.782 af Outflow = 3.12 cfs @ 20.08 hrs, Volume= 8.782 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 439.6 min Discarded = 1.76 cfs @ 20.08 hrs, Volume= 6.386 af Primary = 1.36 cfs @ 20.08 hrs, Volume= 2.395 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 13HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 952.62' @ 20.08 hrs Surf.Area= 6.981 ac Storage= 4.987 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 930.8 min ( 1,985.3 - 1,054.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00' 48.660 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 952.00 5.200 0.000 0.000 954.00 10.980 16.180 16.180 956.00 21.500 32.480 48.660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.76 cfs @ 20.08 hrs HW=952.62' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.76 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.36 cfs @ 20.08 hrs HW=952.62' TW=948.69' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.36 cfs @ 2.67 fps) Summary for Pond KF-10P: EXISTING BASIN-SO 1/16 COR.,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 108.277 ac, 2.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.55" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 31.57 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 4.936 af Outflow = 1.86 cfs @ 20.37 hrs, Volume= 4.936 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 478.1 min Discarded = 0.77 cfs @ 20.37 hrs, Volume= 2.874 af Primary = 1.09 cfs @ 20.37 hrs, Volume= 2.063 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 954.59' @ 20.37 hrs Surf.Area= 3.066 ac Storage= 2.288 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 815.2 min ( 1,974.7 - 1,159.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.00' 7.720 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 954.00 1.910 0.000 0.000 956.00 5.810 7.720 7.720 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 954.00'10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 954.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 14HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.77 cfs @ 20.37 hrs HW=954.59' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.77 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.09 cfs @ 20.37 hrs HW=954.59' TW=952.62' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.09 cfs @ 2.62 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=954.00' TW=952.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-11P: DEPRESSION/WT SW1/4,NE1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 62.900 ac, 0.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.71" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 40.02 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume= 3.746 af Outflow = 1.81 cfs @ 16.18 hrs, Volume= 3.746 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 226.6 min Discarded = 0.71 cfs @ 16.18 hrs, Volume= 1.686 af Primary = 1.10 cfs @ 16.18 hrs, Volume= 2.060 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 964.57' @ 16.18 hrs Surf.Area= 2.802 ac Storage= 2.497 af Plug-Flow detention time= 835.5 min calculated for 3.745 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 835.6 min ( 1,693.1 - 857.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 963.80' 27.510 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 963.80 0.300 0.000 0.000 964.00 1.000 0.130 0.130 966.00 7.380 8.380 8.510 968.00 11.620 19.000 27.510 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 963.80'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 963.80'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.71 cfs @ 16.18 hrs HW=964.57' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.71 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.10 cfs @ 16.18 hrs HW=964.57' TW=954.56' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.10 cfs @ 3.16 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 15HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-12P: POND & WETLAND SE COR. KLEIN FARMS 3RD Inflow Area = 97.205 ac, 3.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.46" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 29.92 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 3.712 af Outflow = 0.89 cfs @ 21.21 hrs, Volume= 2.840 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 519.4 min Primary = 0.89 cfs @ 21.21 hrs, Volume= 2.840 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.98' @ 21.21 hrs Surf.Area= 4.045 ac Storage= 3.027 af Flood Elev= 952.00' Surf.Area= 9.850 ac Storage= 23.895 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,883.0 min calculated for 2.840 af (77% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,804.3 min ( 2,668.2 - 863.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.30' 48.105 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.30 2.420 0.000 0.000 950.00 6.480 7.565 7.565 952.00 9.850 16.330 23.895 954.00 14.360 24.210 48.105 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.30'12.0" Round RCP_Round 12" L= 152.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.30' / 948.00' S= 0.0020 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.89 cfs @ 21.21 hrs HW=948.98' TW=947.07' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 12" (Barrel Controls 0.89 cfs @ 2.21 fps) Summary for Pond KF-13AP: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 37.761 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.71" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 14.62 cfs @ 12.83 hrs, Volume= 2.249 af Outflow = 3.53 cfs @ 14.25 hrs, Volume= 2.249 af, Atten= 76%, Lag= 85.0 min Discarded = 3.53 cfs @ 14.25 hrs, Volume= 2.249 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.49' @ 14.25 hrs Surf.Area= 1.749 ac Storage= 0.846 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 92.0 min ( 977.2 - 885.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 23.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 16HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 1.700 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.900 3.600 3.600 952.00 2.000 3.900 7.500 954.00 2.500 4.500 12.000 956.00 2.800 5.300 17.300 958.00 3.000 5.800 23.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=3.53 cfs @ 14.25 hrs HW=948.49' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 3.53 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.00' TW=950.18' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-13P: POND EAST OF FALLON AVE Inflow Area = 53.518 ac, 6.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.17" for 2-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 8.85 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.769 af Outflow = 3.35 cfs @ 12.76 hrs, Volume= 0.769 af, Atten= 62%, Lag= 25.5 min Primary = 3.35 cfs @ 12.76 hrs, Volume= 0.769 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.15' @ 12.76 hrs Surf.Area= 0.452 ac Storage= 0.149 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.590 ac Storage= 1.953 af Plug-Flow detention time= 12.8 min calculated for 0.769 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 12.6 min ( 874.2 - 861.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.18' 7.253 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.18 0.000 0.000 0.000 951.99 0.001 0.001 0.001 952.00 0.360 0.002 0.003 954.00 1.590 1.950 1.953 955.00 2.220 1.905 3.858 956.00 4.570 3.395 7.253 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.18'12.0" Round Culvert L= 142.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.18' / 949.65' S= 0.0037 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 17HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=3.35 cfs @ 12.76 hrs HW=952.15' TW=948.58' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 3.35 cfs @ 4.27 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=950.18' TW=948.30' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 18HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: P2 Runoff = 21.71 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 1.768 af, Depth= 0.87" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 7.860 98 Impervious * 0.250 98 Existing Impervious 15.830 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.380 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A 24.320 60 Weighted Average 16.210 66.65% Pervious Area 8.110 33.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.7 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 2.3 290 0.0200 2.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 4.3 1,390 0.0070 5.39 9.52 Pipe Channel, 18.0" Round Area= 1.8 sf Perim= 4.7' r= 0.38' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished 17.3 1,780 Total Summary for Subcatchment 4S: P3 Runoff = 17.44 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 1.107 af, Depth= 1.04" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 3.700 98 Impervious 7.680 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.080 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A * 0.310 98 Existing Impervious 12.770 63 Weighted Average 8.760 68.60% Pervious Area 4.010 31.40% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 19HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.1 100 0.0300 0.18 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.1 156 0.0255 2.40 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 896 0.0150 7.89 13.94 Pipe Channel, 18.0" Round Area= 1.8 sf Perim= 4.7' r= 0.38' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished 12.1 1,152 Total Summary for Subcatchment 5S: P4 Runoff = 0.42 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Depth= 0.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.190 98 Existing Impervious * 0.250 98 Impervious 3.830 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 4.270 45 Weighted Average 3.830 89.70% Pervious Area 0.440 10.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.7 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.1 240 0.0580 3.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 11.8 340 Total Summary for Subcatchment KF-02S: NE CORNER OF 85TH ST AND EMONSON AVE Runoff = 1.10 cfs @ 12.61 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af, Depth= 0.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 2.500 98 Existing Impervious 3.800 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 10.000 32 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG A 16.300 44 Weighted Average 13.800 84.66% Pervious Area 2.500 15.34% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 20HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-05S: WEST OF EISELE AVE (P1) Runoff = 43.83 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 4.179 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 31.030 72 31.030 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-06S: FARMSTEAD AVE Runoff = 46.88 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 3.569 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 26.500 72 26.500 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-07S: FAIRHILL LANE Runoff = 37.86 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 2.882 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 21.400 72 21.400 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 21HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-08S: WEST OF FALLON AVENUE Runoff = 24.24 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.845 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description 13.700 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 9.590 70.00% Pervious Area 4.110 30.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-09S: AREA SE FALLON & 85TH-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Runoff = 111.39 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 14.624 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 92.835 72 RESIDENTIAL * 6.900 99 POND/WATER 99.735 74 Weighted Average 92.835 93.08% Pervious Area 6.900 6.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 51.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-10S: AREA WEST & SOUTH OF 85TH-UNDEVELOPED Runoff = 74.68 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 6.380 af, Depth= 1.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 22HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description * 43.077 72 RESIDENTIAL * 2.300 98 BASIN/WATER 45.377 73 Weighted Average 43.077 94.93% Pervious Area 2.300 5.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-11S: AREA NW OF FENNING & 85TH Runoff = 98.60 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 8.472 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 62.600 72 RESIDENTIAL * 0.300 98 BASIN 62.900 72 Weighted Average 62.600 99.52% Pervious Area 0.300 0.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-12S: KLEIN FARMS EAST TRIB. AREA TO POND/WETLAN Runoff = 61.75 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 6.406 af, Depth= 1.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.300 72 KLEIN FARMS 3RD-RESIDENTIAL * 4.600 90 POND/WETLAND @ ELEV. 950 * 22.787 72 RES. 43.687 74 Weighted Average 43.687 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 35.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 23HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment KF-13AS: EAST OF FALLON AVE, NORTH OF 85TH STREET Runoff = 36.33 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 5.086 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 37.761 72 RESIDENTIAL 37.761 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 55.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-13S: FALLON DRIVE Runoff = 24.19 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.854 af, Depth= 1.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description 11.515 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 4.242 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 15.757 69 Weighted Average 12.303 78.08% Pervious Area 3.454 21.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.8 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Calculated GIS Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.9 140 0.0070 1.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.8 465 0.0086 4.21 3.30 Pipe Channel, 12.0" Round Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets 19.5 805 Total Summary for Pond 4P: Pond #1 Inflow Area = 451.237 ac, 7.02% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.03" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 17.44 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 1.107 af Outflow = 1.23 cfs @ 13.71 hrs, Volume= 1.068 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 89.5 min Primary = 1.23 cfs @ 13.71 hrs, Volume= 1.068 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 24HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 947.14' @ 13.71 hrs Surf.Area= 42,991 sf Storage= 26,976 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 599.6 min calculated for 1.068 af (96% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 581.6 min ( 1,428.1 - 846.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.50' 219,726 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.50 40,725 0 0 948.00 46,000 65,044 65,044 950.00 53,380 99,380 164,424 951.00 57,225 55,303 219,726 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 136.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.50' / 946.20' S= 0.0022 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 944.00'18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 951.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.23 cfs @ 13.71 hrs HW=947.14' TW=946.60' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.23 cfs @ 2.50 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes 1.23 cfs of 6.28 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 5P: Ditch - Outlet to Trunk Storm Inflow Area = 455.507 ac, 7.05% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.03" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 1.40 cfs @ 13.52 hrs, Volume= 1.148 af Outflow = 1.33 cfs @ 14.06 hrs, Volume= 1.145 af, Atten= 5%, Lag= 32.8 min Primary = 1.33 cfs @ 14.06 hrs, Volume= 1.145 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 946.60' @ 14.06 hrs Surf.Area= 4,835 sf Storage= 2,495 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 58.5 min calculated for 1.145 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 45.6 min ( 1,439.0 - 1,393.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 64,775 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 3,420 0 0 948.00 8,100 11,520 11,520 950.00 13,190 21,290 32,810 952.00 18,775 31,965 64,775 MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 25HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.00'15.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.00' / 945.76' S= 0.0080 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.33 cfs @ 14.06 hrs HW=946.60' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.33 cfs @ 3.30 fps) Summary for Pond 12P: Pond #2 w/Infil Basin #2 Inflow Area = 438.467 ac, 6.31% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.10" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 21.97 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 3.596 af Outflow = 1.19 cfs @ 15.67 hrs, Volume= 3.596 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 202.4 min Discarded = 1.19 cfs @ 15.67 hrs, Volume= 3.596 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 946.31' @ 15.67 hrs Surf.Area= 51,610 sf Storage= 52,258 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 497.7 min ( 2,029.0 - 1,531.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 945.00' 520,787 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 945.00 36,170 0 0 946.00 40,220 38,195 38,195 946.70 66,250 37,265 75,460 948.00 74,870 91,728 167,187 950.00 88,300 163,170 330,357 952.00 102,130 190,430 520,787 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.70'18.0" Round Culvert L= 165.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.70' / 946.50' S= 0.0012 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 945.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.19 cfs @ 15.67 hrs HW=946.31' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.19 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=945.00' TW=946.50' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 26HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-06P: UPDATED: NORTH OF FAIRHILL LANE CUL-DE-SAC Inflow Area = 397.847 ac, 4.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.68" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 89.78 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 22.589 af Outflow = 2.74 cfs @ 36.81 hrs, Volume= 13.796 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 1,465.8 min Discarded = 1.43 cfs @ 36.81 hrs, Volume= 12.233 af Primary = 1.31 cfs @ 36.81 hrs, Volume= 1.564 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.11' @ 36.81 hrs Surf.Area= 1.773 ac Storage= 11.353 af Plug-Flow detention time= 2,770.7 min calculated for 13.795 af (61% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,563.4 min ( 3,761.1 - 2,197.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 942.00' 14.920 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 942.00 0.140 0.000 0.000 944.00 1.070 1.210 1.210 946.00 1.280 2.350 3.560 948.00 1.470 2.750 6.310 950.00 1.660 3.130 9.440 951.00 1.760 1.710 11.150 952.00 1.880 1.820 12.970 953.00 2.020 1.950 14.920 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.00'15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Discarded 942.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.43 cfs @ 36.81 hrs HW=951.11' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.31 cfs @ 36.81 hrs HW=951.11' TW=945.59' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.31 cfs @ 0.78 fps) Summary for Pond KF-07P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET AND EAST OF FAIRHILL LANE Inflow Area = 243.112 ac, 5.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.71" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 46.51 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 14.461 af Outflow = 11.74 cfs @ 13.27 hrs, Volume= 12.719 af, Atten= 75%, Lag= 56.3 min Primary = 11.74 cfs @ 13.27 hrs, Volume= 12.719 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 27HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 951.15' @ 36.41 hrs Surf.Area= 1.595 ac Storage= 3.979 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 2.290 ac Storage= 9.427 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,051.6 min calculated for 12.719 af (88% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 755.6 min ( 2,513.1 - 1,757.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.02' 9.427 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.02 0.950 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.360 2.287 2.287 952.00 1.770 3.130 5.417 953.00 1.980 1.875 7.292 954.00 2.290 2.135 9.427 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.25'24.0" Round Culvert L= 110.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.25' / 946.99' S= 0.0024 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 948.02'24.0" Round Culvert L= 36.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.02' / 947.25' S= 0.0214 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #3 Device 1 951.75'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 953.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=11.74 cfs @ 13.27 hrs HW=949.63' TW=947.52' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 11.74 cfs of 13.69 cfs potential flow) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 11.74 cfs @ 4.32 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.02' TW=942.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-08P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET Inflow Area = 221.712 ac, 6.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.65" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 24.26 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 12.078 af Outflow = 11.11 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 11.579 af, Atten= 54%, Lag= 6.9 min Primary = 11.11 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 11.579 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 28HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 951.18' @ 35.76 hrs Surf.Area= 0.401 ac Storage= 1.061 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 0.610 ac Storage= 2.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= 304.2 min calculated for 11.578 af (96% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 213.4 min ( 1,987.4 - 1,774.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 947.50' 3.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 947.50 0.200 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.200 0.100 0.100 950.00 0.330 0.530 0.630 952.00 0.450 0.780 1.410 954.00 0.610 1.060 2.470 955.00 0.740 0.675 3.145 956.00 0.910 0.825 3.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.50'24.0" Round RCP_Round 24" L= 41.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.44' S= 0.0015 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 944.63'24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 950.39'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=10.82 cfs @ 12.42 hrs HW=949.56' TW=949.05' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 24" ( Controls 10.82 cfs) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 10.82 cfs @ 3.44 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=947.50' TW=948.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-09P: EXISTING BASIN-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 208.012 ac, 4.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.23" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 113.06 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 21.383 af Outflow = 6.29 cfs @ 20.62 hrs, Volume= 21.383 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 472.3 min Discarded = 2.43 cfs @ 20.62 hrs, Volume= 11.150 af Primary = 3.86 cfs @ 20.62 hrs, Volume= 10.233 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 29HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 953.54' @ 20.62 hrs Surf.Area= 9.655 ac Storage= 12.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,189.3 min ( 2,321.2 - 1,131.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00' 48.660 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 952.00 5.200 0.000 0.000 954.00 10.980 16.180 16.180 956.00 21.500 32.480 48.660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.43 cfs @ 20.62 hrs HW=953.54' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.43 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.86 cfs @ 20.62 hrs HW=953.54' TW=950.46' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.86 cfs @ 4.91 fps) Summary for Pond KF-10P: EXISTING BASIN-SO 1/16 COR.,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 108.277 ac, 2.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.24" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 75.57 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 11.204 af Outflow = 6.10 cfs @ 15.21 hrs, Volume= 11.204 af, Atten= 92%, Lag= 170.7 min Discarded = 1.05 cfs @ 15.21 hrs, Volume= 4.446 af Primary = 2.25 cfs @ 15.21 hrs, Volume= 5.570 af Secondary = 2.80 cfs @ 15.21 hrs, Volume= 1.188 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 955.15' @ 15.21 hrs Surf.Area= 4.158 ac Storage= 4.451 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 784.1 min ( 2,064.9 - 1,280.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.00' 7.720 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 954.00 1.910 0.000 0.000 956.00 5.810 7.720 7.720 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 954.00'10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 954.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 30HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Discarded OutFlow Max=1.05 cfs @ 15.21 hrs HW=955.15' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.05 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.25 cfs @ 15.21 hrs HW=955.15' TW=953.37' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.25 cfs @ 4.13 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=2.80 cfs @ 15.21 hrs HW=955.15' TW=953.37' (Dynamic Tailwater) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.80 cfs @ 0.92 fps) Summary for Pond KF-11P: DEPRESSION/WT SW1/4,NE1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 62.900 ac, 0.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.62" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 98.60 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 8.472 af Outflow = 3.31 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 8.472 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 254.1 min Discarded = 1.40 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 3.648 af Primary = 1.91 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 4.824 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 965.43' @ 16.60 hrs Surf.Area= 5.557 ac Storage= 6.115 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,095.1 min calculated for 8.471 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,095.3 min ( 1,933.6 - 838.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 963.80' 27.510 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 963.80 0.300 0.000 0.000 964.00 1.000 0.130 0.130 966.00 7.380 8.380 8.510 968.00 11.620 19.000 27.510 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 963.80'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 963.80'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.40 cfs @ 16.60 hrs HW=965.43' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.40 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.91 cfs @ 16.60 hrs HW=965.43' TW=955.12' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.91 cfs @ 5.48 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 31HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-12P: POND & WETLAND SE COR. KLEIN FARMS 3RD Inflow Area = 97.205 ac, 3.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.02" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 65.56 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 8.260 af Outflow = 2.03 cfs @ 14.48 hrs, Volume= 2.122 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 117.9 min Primary = 2.03 cfs @ 14.48 hrs, Volume= 2.122 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 950.03' @ 90.34 hrs Surf.Area= 6.535 ac Storage= 7.830 af Flood Elev= 952.00' Surf.Area= 9.850 ac Storage= 23.895 af Plug-Flow detention time= 4,531.9 min calculated for 2.122 af (26% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 4,412.2 min ( 5,271.0 - 858.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.30' 48.105 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.30 2.420 0.000 0.000 950.00 6.480 7.565 7.565 952.00 9.850 16.330 23.895 954.00 14.360 24.210 48.105 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.30'12.0" Round RCP_Round 12" L= 152.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.30' / 948.00' S= 0.0020 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=2.03 cfs @ 14.48 hrs HW=949.51' TW=948.91' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 12" (Outlet Controls 2.03 cfs @ 2.70 fps) Summary for Pond KF-13AP: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 37.761 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.62" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 36.33 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 5.086 af Outflow = 3.76 cfs @ 15.36 hrs, Volume= 5.086 af, Atten= 90%, Lag= 155.0 min Discarded = 3.76 cfs @ 15.36 hrs, Volume= 5.086 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 949.65' @ 15.36 hrs Surf.Area= 1.865 ac Storage= 2.934 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 352.1 min ( 1,218.1 - 866.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 23.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 32HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 1.700 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.900 3.600 3.600 952.00 2.000 3.900 7.500 954.00 2.500 4.500 12.000 956.00 2.800 5.300 17.300 958.00 3.000 5.800 23.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=3.76 cfs @ 15.36 hrs HW=949.65' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 3.76 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.00' TW=950.18' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-13P: POND EAST OF FALLON AVE Inflow Area = 53.518 ac, 6.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.42" for 10-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 24.19 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 1.854 af Outflow = 3.97 cfs @ 13.19 hrs, Volume= 1.854 af, Atten= 84%, Lag= 53.0 min Primary = 3.97 cfs @ 13.19 hrs, Volume= 1.854 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.75' @ 13.19 hrs Surf.Area= 0.823 ac Storage= 0.736 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.590 ac Storage= 1.953 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 72.0 min ( 911.4 - 839.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.18' 7.253 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.18 0.000 0.000 0.000 951.99 0.001 0.001 0.001 952.00 0.360 0.002 0.003 954.00 1.590 1.950 1.953 955.00 2.220 1.905 3.858 956.00 4.570 3.395 7.253 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.18'12.0" Round Culvert L= 142.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.18' / 949.65' S= 0.0037 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 33HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=3.97 cfs @ 13.19 hrs HW=952.75' TW=949.23' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 3.97 cfs @ 5.05 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=950.18' TW=948.30' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 34HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: P2 Runoff = 71.95 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 5.091 af, Depth= 2.51" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 7.860 98 Impervious * 0.250 98 Existing Impervious 15.830 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.380 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A 24.320 60 Weighted Average 16.210 66.65% Pervious Area 8.110 33.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.7 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 2.3 290 0.0200 2.12 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 4.3 1,390 0.0070 5.39 9.52 Pipe Channel, 18.0" Round Area= 1.8 sf Perim= 4.7' r= 0.38' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished 17.3 1,780 Total Summary for Subcatchment 4S: P3 Runoff = 51.11 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2.984 af, Depth= 2.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 3.700 98 Impervious 7.680 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.080 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A * 0.310 98 Existing Impervious 12.770 63 Weighted Average 8.760 68.60% Pervious Area 4.010 31.40% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 35HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.1 100 0.0300 0.18 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.1 156 0.0255 2.40 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 896 0.0150 7.89 13.94 Pipe Channel, 18.0" Round Area= 1.8 sf Perim= 4.7' r= 0.38' n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished 12.1 1,152 Total Summary for Subcatchment 5S: P4 Runoff = 5.80 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.419 af, Depth= 1.18" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.190 98 Existing Impervious * 0.250 98 Impervious 3.830 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 4.270 45 Weighted Average 3.830 89.70% Pervious Area 0.440 10.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.7 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.1 240 0.0580 3.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 11.8 340 Total Summary for Subcatchment KF-02S: NE CORNER OF 85TH ST AND EMONSON AVE Runoff = 15.08 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 1.490 af, Depth= 1.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 2.500 98 Existing Impervious 3.800 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 10.000 32 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG A 16.300 44 Weighted Average 13.800 84.66% Pervious Area 2.500 15.34% Impervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 36HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-05S: WEST OF EISELE AVE (P1) Runoff = 103.72 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 9.616 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 31.030 72 31.030 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-06S: FARMSTEAD AVE Runoff = 110.59 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 8.212 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 26.500 72 26.500 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-07S: FAIRHILL LANE Runoff = 89.31 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 6.631 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 21.400 72 21.400 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 37HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-08S: WEST OF FALLON AVENUE Runoff = 57.17 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 4.245 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description 13.700 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 9.590 70.00% Pervious Area 4.110 30.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 20.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment KF-09S: AREA SE FALLON & 85TH-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Runoff = 253.64 cfs @ 12.70 hrs, Volume= 32.655 af, Depth= 3.93" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 92.835 72 RESIDENTIAL * 6.900 99 POND/WATER 99.735 74 Weighted Average 92.835 93.08% Pervious Area 6.900 6.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 51.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-10S: AREA WEST & SOUTH OF 85TH-UNDEVELOPED Runoff = 173.14 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 14.458 af, Depth= 3.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 38HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description * 43.077 72 RESIDENTIAL * 2.300 98 BASIN/WATER 45.377 73 Weighted Average 43.077 94.93% Pervious Area 2.300 5.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-11S: AREA NW OF FENNING & 85TH Runoff = 233.35 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 19.491 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 62.600 72 RESIDENTIAL * 0.300 98 BASIN 62.900 72 Weighted Average 62.600 99.52% Pervious Area 0.300 0.48% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-12S: KLEIN FARMS EAST TRIB. AREA TO POND/WETLAN Runoff = 140.91 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 14.304 af, Depth= 3.93" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 16.300 72 KLEIN FARMS 3RD-RESIDENTIAL * 4.600 90 POND/WETLAND @ ELEV. 950 * 22.787 72 RES. 43.687 74 Weighted Average 43.687 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 35.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 39HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment KF-13AS: EAST OF FALLON AVE, NORTH OF 85TH STREET Runoff = 86.47 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 11.701 af, Depth= 3.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 37.761 72 RESIDENTIAL 37.761 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 55.0 Direct Entry, Segment ID: Summary for Subcatchment KF-13S: FALLON DRIVE Runoff = 60.88 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 4.475 af, Depth= 3.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description 11.515 72 1/3 acre lots, 30% imp, HSG B 4.242 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 15.757 69 Weighted Average 12.303 78.08% Pervious Area 3.454 21.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.8 200 0.0300 0.21 Sheet Flow, Calculated GIS Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 1.9 140 0.0070 1.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.8 465 0.0086 4.21 3.30 Pipe Channel, 12.0" Round Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets 19.5 805 Total Summary for Pond 4P: Pond #1 Inflow Area = 451.237 ac, 7.02% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.77" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 51.11 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 28.967 af Outflow = 8.47 cfs @ 24.39 hrs, Volume= 28.880 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 731.1 min Primary = 8.47 cfs @ 24.39 hrs, Volume= 28.880 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 40HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 949.98' @ 24.32 hrs Surf.Area= 53,297 sf Storage= 163,226 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 284.8 min calculated for 28.878 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 275.8 min ( 2,269.5 - 1,993.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.50' 219,726 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.50 40,725 0 0 948.00 46,000 65,044 65,044 950.00 53,380 99,380 164,424 951.00 57,225 55,303 219,726 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 136.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.50' / 946.20' S= 0.0022 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 944.00'18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 951.00'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=8.47 cfs @ 24.39 hrs HW=949.98' TW=948.68' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 8.47 cfs @ 4.80 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes 8.47 cfs of 9.67 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond 5P: Ditch - Outlet to Trunk Storm Inflow Area = 455.507 ac, 7.05% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.77" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 8.52 cfs @ 23.56 hrs, Volume= 29.299 af Outflow = 8.48 cfs @ 24.25 hrs, Volume= 29.293 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 41.5 min Primary = 8.48 cfs @ 24.25 hrs, Volume= 29.293 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 948.69' @ 24.25 hrs Surf.Area= 9,844 sf Storage= 17,667 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 30.6 min calculated for 29.293 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 29.5 min ( 2,278.9 - 2,249.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 64,775 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 3,420 0 0 948.00 8,100 11,520 11,520 950.00 13,190 21,290 32,810 952.00 18,775 31,965 64,775 MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 41HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.00'15.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.00' / 945.76' S= 0.0080 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=8.48 cfs @ 24.25 hrs HW=948.69' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.48 cfs @ 6.91 fps) Summary for Pond 12P: Pond #2 w/Infil Basin #2 Inflow Area = 438.467 ac, 6.31% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.09" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 85.26 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 39.931 af Outflow = 11.81 cfs @ 18.00 hrs, Volume= 39.931 af, Atten= 86%, Lag= 342.6 min Discarded = 2.29 cfs @ 21.77 hrs, Volume= 13.947 af Primary = 9.57 cfs @ 17.79 hrs, Volume= 25.983 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.51' @ 21.77 hrs Surf.Area= 98,724 sf Storage= 471,317 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 663.8 min calculated for 39.927 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 663.8 min ( 2,547.9 - 1,884.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 945.00' 520,787 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 945.00 36,170 0 0 946.00 40,220 38,195 38,195 946.70 66,250 37,265 75,460 948.00 74,870 91,728 167,187 950.00 88,300 163,170 330,357 952.00 102,130 190,430 520,787 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 946.70'18.0" Round Culvert L= 165.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 946.70' / 946.50' S= 0.0012 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Discarded 945.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.29 cfs @ 21.77 hrs HW=951.51' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.29 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=9.57 cfs @ 17.79 hrs HW=951.18' TW=949.33' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 9.57 cfs @ 5.41 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 42HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-06P: UPDATED: NORTH OF FAIRHILL LANE CUL-DE-SAC Inflow Area = 397.847 ac, 4.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.72" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 218.88 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 56.922 af Outflow = 32.25 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 46.203 af, Atten= 85%, Lag= 74.2 min Discarded = 1.50 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 12.853 af Primary = 30.75 cfs @ 13.60 hrs, Volume= 33.350 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.84' @ 13.60 hrs Surf.Area= 1.860 ac Storage= 12.672 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,076.2 min calculated for 46.203 af (81% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 434.6 min ( 2,600.9 - 2,166.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 942.00' 14.920 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 942.00 0.140 0.000 0.000 944.00 1.070 1.210 1.210 946.00 1.280 2.350 3.560 948.00 1.470 2.750 6.310 950.00 1.660 3.130 9.440 951.00 1.760 1.710 11.150 952.00 1.880 1.820 12.970 953.00 2.020 1.950 14.920 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.00'15.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 #2 Discarded 942.00'0.800 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=1.50 cfs @ 13.60 hrs HW=951.84' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.50 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=30.75 cfs @ 13.60 hrs HW=951.84' TW=948.85' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 30.75 cfs @ 2.45 fps) Summary for Pond KF-07P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET AND EAST OF FAIRHILL LANE Inflow Area = 243.112 ac, 5.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.90" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 104.65 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 38.437 af Outflow = 19.84 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 35.075 af, Atten= 81%, Lag= 12.9 min Primary = 19.84 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 35.075 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 43HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 952.29' @ 15.21 hrs Surf.Area= 1.831 ac Storage= 5.936 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 2.290 ac Storage= 9.427 af Plug-Flow detention time= 573.0 min calculated for 35.075 af (91% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 300.9 min ( 2,557.0 - 2,256.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.02' 9.427 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.02 0.950 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.360 2.287 2.287 952.00 1.770 3.130 5.417 953.00 1.980 1.875 7.292 954.00 2.290 2.135 9.427 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.25'24.0" Round Culvert L= 110.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.25' / 946.99' S= 0.0024 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 948.02'24.0" Round Culvert L= 36.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.02' / 947.25' S= 0.0214 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #3 Device 1 951.75'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 953.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=19.37 cfs @ 12.52 hrs HW=950.76' TW=949.07' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Outlet Controls 19.37 cfs @ 6.17 fps) 2=Culvert (Passes 19.37 cfs of 19.69 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.02' TW=942.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-08P: POND NORTH OF 87TH STREET Inflow Area = 221.712 ac, 6.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.77" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 57.61 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 32.699 af Outflow = 17.98 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 31.805 af, Atten= 69%, Lag= 14.9 min Primary = 17.98 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 31.805 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 44HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 952.58' @ 15.18 hrs Surf.Area= 0.497 ac Storage= 1.685 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 0.610 ac Storage= 2.470 af Plug-Flow detention time= 190.3 min calculated for 31.803 af (97% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 99.2 min ( 2,556.3 - 2,457.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 947.50' 3.970 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 947.50 0.200 0.000 0.000 948.00 0.200 0.100 0.100 950.00 0.330 0.530 0.630 952.00 0.450 0.780 1.410 954.00 0.610 1.060 2.470 955.00 0.740 0.675 3.145 956.00 0.910 0.825 3.970 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.50'24.0" Round RCP_Round 24" L= 41.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.44' S= 0.0015 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 944.63'24.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3 Device 1 950.39'48.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=17.81 cfs @ 12.54 hrs HW=952.21' TW=950.82' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 24" (Inlet Controls 17.81 cfs @ 5.67 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 17.81 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 71.25 cfs potential flow) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=947.50' TW=948.02' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-09P: EXISTING BASIN-SW1/4,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 208.012 ac, 4.57% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.96" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 299.62 cfs @ 12.75 hrs, Volume= 51.291 af Outflow = 10.42 cfs @ 21.08 hrs, Volume= 51.291 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 499.9 min Discarded = 4.27 cfs @ 21.08 hrs, Volume= 22.837 af Primary = 6.14 cfs @ 21.08 hrs, Volume= 28.454 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 45HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 955.14' @ 21.08 hrs Surf.Area= 16.958 ac Storage= 34.636 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,779.6 min calculated for 51.287 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,779.5 min ( 2,936.5 - 1,157.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00' 48.660 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 952.00 5.200 0.000 0.000 954.00 10.980 16.180 16.180 956.00 21.500 32.480 48.660 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=4.27 cfs @ 21.08 hrs HW=955.14' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 4.27 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=6.14 cfs @ 21.08 hrs HW=955.14' TW=952.18' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 6.14 cfs @ 7.82 fps) Summary for Pond KF-10P: EXISTING BASIN-SO 1/16 COR.,NW1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 108.277 ac, 2.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.80" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 174.93 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 25.290 af Outflow = 50.84 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 25.290 af, Atten= 71%, Lag= 32.0 min Discarded = 1.42 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 6.654 af Primary = 3.20 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 7.646 af Secondary = 46.22 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 10.990 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 955.91' @ 12.89 hrs Surf.Area= 5.626 ac Storage= 7.357 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 596.8 min ( 2,102.9 - 1,506.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 954.00' 7.720 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 954.00 1.910 0.000 0.000 956.00 5.810 7.720 7.720 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 954.00'10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 954.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Secondary 955.00'20.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 46HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Discarded OutFlow Max=1.42 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=955.91' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.42 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.20 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=955.91' TW=953.80' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.20 cfs @ 5.88 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=46.21 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=955.91' TW=953.80' (Dynamic Tailwater) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 46.21 cfs @ 2.55 fps) Summary for Pond KF-11P: DEPRESSION/WT SW1/4,NE1/4,SEC 24 Inflow Area = 62.900 ac, 0.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.72" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 233.35 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 19.491 af Outflow = 4.96 cfs @ 18.82 hrs, Volume= 19.491 af, Atten= 98%, Lag= 387.2 min Discarded = 2.25 cfs @ 18.82 hrs, Volume= 8.660 af Primary = 2.71 cfs @ 18.82 hrs, Volume= 10.832 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 966.73' @ 18.82 hrs Surf.Area= 8.924 ac Storage= 15.428 af Plug-Flow detention time= 1,610.5 min calculated for 19.490 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,610.8 min ( 2,431.8 - 821.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 963.80' 27.510 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 963.80 0.300 0.000 0.000 964.00 1.000 0.130 0.130 966.00 7.380 8.380 8.510 968.00 11.620 19.000 27.510 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 963.80'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 963.80'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=2.25 cfs @ 18.82 hrs HW=966.73' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 2.25 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.71 cfs @ 18.82 hrs HW=966.73' TW=955.24' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.71 cfs @ 7.76 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 47HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond KF-12P: POND & WETLAND SE COR. KLEIN FARMS 3RD Inflow Area = 97.205 ac, 3.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.32" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 145.71 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 18.778 af Outflow = 1.76 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 4.019 af, Atten= 99%, Lag= 0.8 min Primary = 1.76 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 4.019 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.37' @ 25.99 hrs Surf.Area= 8.786 ac Storage= 18.740 af Flood Elev= 952.00' Surf.Area= 9.850 ac Storage= 23.895 af Plug-Flow detention time= 3,999.2 min calculated for 4.019 af (21% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 3,845.3 min ( 4,723.0 - 877.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.30' 48.105 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.30 2.420 0.000 0.000 950.00 6.480 7.565 7.565 952.00 9.850 16.330 23.895 954.00 14.360 24.210 48.105 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 948.30'12.0" Round RCP_Round 12" L= 152.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 948.30' / 948.00' S= 0.0020 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete sewer w/manholes & inlets, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.60 cfs @ 12.50 hrs HW=949.35' TW=948.88' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=RCP_Round 12" (Outlet Controls 1.60 cfs @ 2.41 fps) Summary for Pond KF-13AP: PROPOSED POND Inflow Area = 37.761 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.72" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 86.47 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 11.701 af Outflow = 4.23 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 11.702 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 229.9 min Discarded = 4.23 cfs @ 16.60 hrs, Volume= 11.702 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.39' @ 16.60 hrs Surf.Area= 2.097 ac Storage= 8.298 af Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 884.4 min ( 1,733.1 - 848.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 23.100 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 48HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 948.00 1.700 0.000 0.000 950.00 1.900 3.600 3.600 952.00 2.000 3.900 7.500 954.00 2.500 4.500 12.000 956.00 2.800 5.300 17.300 958.00 3.000 5.800 23.100 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.00'6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2 Discarded 948.00'2.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=4.23 cfs @ 16.60 hrs HW=952.39' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 4.23 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=948.00' TW=950.18' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond KF-13P: POND EAST OF FALLON AVE Inflow Area = 53.518 ac, 6.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.00" for 100-yr_Atlas14 event Inflow = 60.88 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 4.475 af Outflow = 5.19 cfs @ 13.67 hrs, Volume= 4.474 af, Atten= 91%, Lag= 82.8 min Primary = 5.19 cfs @ 13.67 hrs, Volume= 4.474 af Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 954.25' @ 13.67 hrs Surf.Area= 1.745 ac Storage= 2.420 af Flood Elev= 954.00' Surf.Area= 1.590 ac Storage= 1.953 af Plug-Flow detention time= 219.3 min calculated for 4.474 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 219.2 min ( 1,039.8 - 820.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.18' 7.253 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 950.18 0.000 0.000 0.000 951.99 0.001 0.001 0.001 952.00 0.360 0.002 0.003 954.00 1.590 1.950 1.953 955.00 2.220 1.905 3.858 956.00 4.570 3.395 7.253 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 950.18'12.0" Round Culvert L= 142.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.18' / 949.65' S= 0.0037 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Secondary 955.00'10.0' long x 5.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 49HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.34 2.50 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.67 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 2.79 2.88 Primary OutFlow Max=5.19 cfs @ 13.67 hrs HW=954.25' TW=950.45' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 5.19 cfs @ 6.61 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=950.18' TW=948.30' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 6S Existing P5 7S Proposed P5 8S Existing P6 9S Proposed P6 Routing Diagram for MEADOWBROOK OFFSITE Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc., Printed 12/13/2024 HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link APPENDIX C MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK OFFSITE Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Existing P5 Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.055 af, Depth= 0.51" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description 1.300 67 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG A 1.300 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 18.0 170 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Cultivated: Residue>20% n= 0.170 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 7S: Proposed P5 Runoff = 0.03 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.009 af, Depth= 0.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.240 98 Impervious 0.840 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.080 52 Weighted Average 0.840 77.78% Pervious Area 0.240 22.22% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.9 100 0.0600 0.24 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Existing P6 Runoff = 0.57 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af, Depth= 0.51" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description 1.100 67 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG A 1.100 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84"MEADOWBROOK OFFSITE Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.4 140 0.0200 0.15 Sheet Flow, Cultivated: Residue>20% n= 0.170 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 9S: Proposed P6 Runoff = 0.02 cfs @ 12.53 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Depth= 0.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=2.84" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.150 98 Impervious 0.540 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.690 52 Weighted Average 0.540 78.26% Pervious Area 0.150 21.74% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.1 100 0.0400 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 0.7 80 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 8.8 180 Total MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK OFFSITE Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Existing P5 Runoff = 1.87 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.139 af, Depth= 1.28" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description 1.300 67 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG A 1.300 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 18.0 170 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Cultivated: Residue>20% n= 0.170 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 7S: Proposed P5 Runoff = 0.61 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth= 0.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.240 98 Impervious 0.840 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.080 52 Weighted Average 0.840 77.78% Pervious Area 0.240 22.22% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.9 100 0.0600 0.24 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Existing P6 Runoff = 1.71 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.118 af, Depth= 1.28" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description 1.100 67 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG A 1.100 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22"MEADOWBROOK OFFSITE Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 5HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.4 140 0.0200 0.15 Sheet Flow, Cultivated: Residue>20% n= 0.170 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 9S: Proposed P6 Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth= 0.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=4.22" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.150 98 Impervious 0.540 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.690 52 Weighted Average 0.540 78.26% Pervious Area 0.150 21.74% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.1 100 0.0400 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 0.7 80 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 8.8 180 Total MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK OFFSITE Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 6HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Existing P5 Runoff = 4.90 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.347 af, Depth= 3.20" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description 1.300 67 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG A 1.300 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 18.0 170 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Cultivated: Residue>20% n= 0.170 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 7S: Proposed P5 Runoff = 3.26 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.159 af, Depth= 1.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.240 98 Impervious 0.840 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 1.080 52 Weighted Average 0.840 77.78% Pervious Area 0.240 22.22% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.9 100 0.0600 0.24 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 8S: Existing P6 Runoff = 4.49 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.294 af, Depth= 3.20" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description 1.100 67 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG A 1.100 100.00% Pervious Area MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87"MEADOWBROOK OFFSITE Printed 12/13/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 7HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.4 140 0.0200 0.15 Sheet Flow, Cultivated: Residue>20% n= 0.170 P2= 2.70" Summary for Subcatchment 9S: Proposed P6 Runoff = 1.88 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.102 af, Depth= 1.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-120.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=6.87" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.150 98 Impervious 0.540 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 0.690 52 Weighted Average 0.540 78.26% Pervious Area 0.150 21.74% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.1 100 0.0400 0.21 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.70" 0.7 80 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 8.8 180 Total MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=7.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/2/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 1HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 12P: Pond #2 w/Infil Basin #2 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 945.00 36,170 0 945.02 36,251 724 945.04 36,332 1,450 945.06 36,413 2,177 945.08 36,494 2,907 945.10 36,575 3,637 945.12 36,656 4,370 945.14 36,737 5,103 945.16 36,818 5,839 945.18 36,899 6,576 945.20 36,980 7,315 945.22 37,061 8,055 945.24 37,142 8,797 945.26 37,223 9,541 945.28 37,304 10,286 945.30 37,385 11,033 945.32 37,466 11,782 945.34 37,547 12,532 945.36 37,628 13,284 945.38 37,709 14,037 945.40 37,790 14,792 945.42 37,871 15,549 945.44 37,952 16,307 945.46 38,033 17,067 945.48 38,114 17,828 945.50 38,195 18,591 945.52 38,276 19,356 945.54 38,357 20,122 945.56 38,438 20,890 945.58 38,519 21,660 945.60 38,600 22,431 945.62 38,681 23,204 945.64 38,762 23,978 945.66 38,843 24,754 945.68 38,924 25,532 945.70 39,005 26,311 945.72 39,086 27,092 945.74 39,167 27,875 945.76 39,248 28,659 945.78 39,329 29,445 945.80 39,410 30,232 945.82 39,491 31,021 945.84 39,572 31,812 945.86 39,653 32,604 945.88 39,734 33,398 945.90 39,815 34,193 945.92 39,896 34,990 945.94 39,977 35,789 945.96 40,058 36,589 945.98 40,139 37,391 946.00 40,220 38,195 946.02 40,964 39,007 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 946.04 41,707 39,834 946.06 42,451 40,675 946.08 43,195 41,532 946.10 43,939 42,403 946.12 44,682 43,289 946.14 45,426 44,190 946.16 46,170 45,106 946.18 46,913 46,037 946.20 47,657 46,983 946.22 48,401 47,943 946.24 49,145 48,919 946.26 49,888 49,909 946.28 50,632 50,914 946.30 51,376 51,934 946.32 52,119 52,969 946.34 52,863 54,019 946.36 53,607 55,084 946.38 54,351 56,163 946.40 55,094 57,258 946.42 55,838 58,367 946.44 56,582 59,491 946.46 57,325 60,630 946.48 58,069 61,784 946.50 58,813 62,953 946.52 59,557 64,137 946.54 60,300 65,335 946.56 61,044 66,549 946.58 61,788 67,777 946.60 62,531 69,020 946.62 63,275 70,278 946.64 64,019 71,551 946.66 64,763 72,839 946.68 65,506 74,142 946.70 66,250 75,460 946.72 66,383 76,786 946.74 66,515 78,115 946.76 66,648 79,446 946.78 66,780 80,781 946.80 66,913 82,118 946.82 67,046 83,457 946.84 67,178 84,799 946.86 67,311 86,144 946.88 67,444 87,492 946.90 67,576 88,842 946.92 67,709 90,195 946.94 67,841 91,550 946.96 67,974 92,909 946.98 68,107 94,269 947.00 68,239 95,633 947.02 68,372 96,999 947.04 68,504 98,368 947.06 68,637 99,739 APPENDIX D MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=7.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/2/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 12P: Pond #2 w/Infil Basin #2 (continued) Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 947.08 68,770 101,113 947.10 68,902 102,490 947.12 69,035 103,869 947.14 69,168 105,251 947.16 69,300 106,636 947.18 69,433 108,023 947.20 69,565 109,413 947.22 69,698 110,806 947.24 69,831 112,201 947.26 69,963 113,599 947.28 70,096 115,000 947.30 70,228 116,403 947.32 70,361 117,809 947.34 70,494 119,217 947.36 70,626 120,629 947.38 70,759 122,043 947.40 70,892 123,459 947.42 71,024 124,878 947.44 71,157 126,300 947.46 71,289 127,724 947.48 71,422 129,152 947.50 71,555 130,581 947.52 71,687 132,014 947.54 71,820 133,449 947.56 71,952 134,887 947.58 72,085 136,327 947.60 72,218 137,770 947.62 72,350 139,216 947.64 72,483 140,664 947.66 72,616 142,115 947.68 72,748 143,569 947.70 72,881 145,025 947.72 73,013 146,484 947.74 73,146 147,945 947.76 73,279 149,410 947.78 73,411 150,877 947.80 73,544 152,346 947.82 73,676 153,818 947.84 73,809 155,293 947.86 73,942 156,771 947.88 74,074 158,251 947.90 74,207 159,734 947.92 74,340 161,219 947.94 74,472 162,707 947.96 74,605 164,198 947.98 74,737 165,691 948.00 74,870 167,187 948.02 75,004 168,686 948.04 75,139 170,188 948.06 75,273 171,692 948.08 75,407 173,199 948.10 75,542 174,708 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 948.12 75,676 176,220 948.14 75,810 177,735 948.16 75,944 179,253 948.18 76,079 180,773 948.20 76,213 182,296 948.22 76,347 183,821 948.24 76,482 185,350 948.26 76,616 186,881 948.28 76,750 188,414 948.30 76,884 189,951 948.32 77,019 191,490 948.34 77,153 193,031 948.36 77,287 194,576 948.38 77,422 196,123 948.40 77,556 197,673 948.42 77,690 199,225 948.44 77,825 200,780 948.46 77,959 202,338 948.48 78,093 203,899 948.50 78,228 205,462 948.52 78,362 207,028 948.54 78,496 208,596 948.56 78,630 210,168 948.58 78,765 211,742 948.60 78,899 213,318 948.62 79,033 214,898 948.64 79,168 216,480 948.66 79,302 218,064 948.68 79,436 219,652 948.70 79,571 221,242 948.72 79,705 222,834 948.74 79,839 224,430 948.76 79,973 226,028 948.78 80,108 227,629 948.80 80,242 229,232 948.82 80,376 230,838 948.84 80,511 232,447 948.86 80,645 234,059 948.88 80,779 235,673 948.90 80,913 237,290 948.92 81,048 238,910 948.94 81,182 240,532 948.96 81,316 242,157 948.98 81,451 243,785 949.00 81,585 245,415 949.02 81,719 247,048 949.04 81,854 248,684 949.06 81,988 250,322 949.08 82,122 251,963 949.10 82,257 253,607 949.12 82,391 255,254 949.14 82,525 256,903 MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=7.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/2/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 12P: Pond #2 w/Infil Basin #2 (continued) Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 949.16 82,659 258,555 949.18 82,794 260,209 949.20 82,928 261,866 949.22 83,062 263,526 949.24 83,197 265,189 949.26 83,331 266,854 949.28 83,465 268,522 949.30 83,599 270,193 949.32 83,734 271,866 949.34 83,868 273,542 949.36 84,002 275,221 949.38 84,137 276,902 949.40 84,271 278,586 949.42 84,405 280,273 949.44 84,540 281,962 949.46 84,674 283,655 949.48 84,808 285,349 949.50 84,943 287,047 949.52 85,077 288,747 949.54 85,211 290,450 949.56 85,345 292,156 949.58 85,480 293,864 949.60 85,614 295,575 949.62 85,748 297,288 949.64 85,883 299,005 949.66 86,017 300,724 949.68 86,151 302,445 949.70 86,286 304,170 949.72 86,420 305,897 949.74 86,554 307,626 949.76 86,688 309,359 949.78 86,823 311,094 949.80 86,957 312,832 949.82 87,091 314,572 949.84 87,226 316,315 949.86 87,360 318,061 949.88 87,494 319,810 949.90 87,628 321,561 949.92 87,763 323,315 949.94 87,897 325,072 949.96 88,031 326,831 949.98 88,166 328,593 950.00 88,300 330,357 950.02 88,438 332,125 950.04 88,577 333,895 950.06 88,715 335,668 950.08 88,853 337,444 950.10 88,992 339,222 950.12 89,130 341,003 950.14 89,268 342,787 950.16 89,406 344,574 950.18 89,545 346,364 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 950.20 89,683 348,156 950.22 89,821 349,951 950.24 89,960 351,749 950.26 90,098 353,549 950.28 90,236 355,353 950.30 90,374 357,159 950.32 90,513 358,968 950.34 90,651 360,779 950.36 90,789 362,594 950.38 90,928 364,411 950.40 91,066 366,231 950.42 91,204 368,053 950.44 91,343 369,879 950.46 91,481 371,707 950.48 91,619 373,538 950.50 91,758 375,372 950.52 91,896 377,208 950.54 92,034 379,048 950.56 92,172 380,890 950.58 92,311 382,735 950.60 92,449 384,582 950.62 92,587 386,433 950.64 92,726 388,286 950.66 92,864 390,142 950.68 93,002 392,000 950.70 93,141 393,862 950.72 93,279 395,726 950.74 93,417 397,593 950.76 93,555 399,463 950.78 93,694 401,335 950.80 93,832 403,210 950.82 93,970 405,088 950.84 94,109 406,969 950.86 94,247 408,853 950.88 94,385 410,739 950.90 94,523 412,628 950.92 94,662 414,520 950.94 94,800 416,415 950.96 94,938 418,312 950.98 95,077 420,212 951.00 95,215 422,115 951.02 95,353 424,021 951.04 95,492 425,929 951.06 95,630 427,840 951.08 95,768 429,754 951.10 95,907 431,671 951.12 96,045 433,591 951.14 96,183 435,513 951.16 96,321 437,438 951.18 96,460 439,366 951.20 96,598 441,296 951.22 96,736 443,230 MSE 24-hr 3 100-yr_Atlas14 Rainfall=7.22"MEADOWBROOK MONT CSWMP UPDATES Printed 12/2/2024Prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.10-4b s/n 03113 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 12P: Pond #2 w/Infil Basin #2 (continued) Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 951.24 96,875 445,166 951.26 97,013 447,105 951.28 97,151 449,046 951.30 97,289 450,991 951.32 97,428 452,938 951.34 97,566 454,888 951.36 97,704 456,840 951.38 97,843 458,796 951.40 97,981 460,754 951.42 98,119 462,715 951.44 98,258 464,679 951.46 98,396 466,646 951.48 98,534 468,615 951.50 98,673 470,587 951.52 98,811 472,562 951.54 98,949 474,539 951.56 99,087 476,520 951.58 99,226 478,503 951.60 99,364 480,489 951.62 99,502 482,477 951.64 99,641 484,469 951.66 99,779 486,463 951.68 99,917 488,460 951.70 100,056 490,460 951.72 100,194 492,462 951.74 100,332 494,467 951.76 100,470 496,475 951.78 100,609 498,486 951.80 100,747 500,500 951.82 100,885 502,516 951.84 101,024 504,535 951.86 101,162 506,557 951.88 101,300 508,582 951.90 101,438 510,609 951.92 101,577 512,639 951.94 101,715 514,672 951.96 101,853 516,708 951.98 101,992 518,746 952.00 102,130 520,787 APPENDIX E BULKHEAD EXIST PIPE 30 LF (INCL. FES) 15" RCP 15" RCP FES INV=946.00INV=945.76 CORE DRILL NEW OUTLET PROPOSED OCS MODIFICATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 OU T L O T B OU T L O T D O U T L O T A 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 EDMONDSON AVENUE NE 87 T H S T N E 89 T H S T N E P A R K D R I V E 87 T H S T N E COUNTRY AVE FA I R H A L L CT OU T L O T E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141516 131211 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6789 1011 12 13 14 1516 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 7 740 39 44 45 46 8 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 12 13 10 11 9 7 9 10 11 4 3 2 1 5 67 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 6 789101112 3 OU T L O T C 30 35 34 33 3238 37 36 41 42 43 9 8 6 5 234 SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com 24-0314 8-22-24 CONCEPT PLAN 1 1 JPB LAND, LLCMONTICELLO, MN N Feet 0 100 200 Infiltration Test APPENDIX F #1 #2 #3 #4 Constants Area cm2 Depth of Liquid (cm) Liquid Container Number Inner Ring 729 11.0 1 Elevation:Annular Space 2189 11.0 2 Liquid: Remarks Inner Ring Reading cm Inner Maroitte Tube Flow Annular Space Reading cm Annular Space Marriotte Tube Flow (ml) Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Annular Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Ground Temp Depth (in) Temp at Depth (F) Weather conditions Etc... Hourly Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Start Test 10/11/2024 11:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 11:45 0:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 11:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 12:00 0:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 12:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 12:15 0:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 12:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 12:30 1:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 12:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 12:45 1:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 12:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:00 1:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:15 1:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:30 2:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:45 2:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:00 2:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:15 2:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:30 3:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 11:30 End Test 14:30 3:00 0.00 0.002 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tested By: Penetration Depth of Outer Ring:Depth to water table:3 inches Start / End Date MM/DD/YY Time HR:MIN Elapsed Time Chg/(Total) Min Not encountered in 36" Liquid level maintained using:( X ) Flow Valve ( ) Float Valve ( ) Mariotte Tubes Liquid Temp (F) Flow Readings Infiltration Rate Ground Temperature N.Curtis Water 0 0.00 1 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 Infiltrometer Recording Chart Marriotte Tube Volume 3000 10000 Project Identification:24-0771 Soil Type: Test Location: cls Outlot C Basin Trial # 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 4 0 0 3 0 0 0.00 0.00 7 0.00 0.00 6 0.00 8 0.00 0.0015 11 10 0.0014 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 16 22 0.00 0.00 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00170.00 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Results 21 24 23 18 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Infiltration in Inches (3 Hour Test) #1 Constants Area cm2 Depth of Liquid (cm) Liquid Container Number Inner Ring 729 11.0 1 Elevation:Annular Space 2189 11.0 2 Liquid: Remarks Inner Ring Reading cm Inner Maroitte Tube Flow Annular Space Reading cm Annular Space Marriotte Tube Flow (ml) Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Annular Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Ground Temp Depth (in) Temp at Depth (F) Weather conditions Etc... Hourly Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Start Test 10/11/2024 12:55 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:10 0:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:10 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:25 0:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:25 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:40 0:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:40 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 13:55 1:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 13:55 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:10 1:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:10 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:25 1:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:25 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:40 1:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:40 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 14:55 2:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 14:55 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 15:10 2:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 15:10 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 15:25 2:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 15:25 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 15:40 2:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/11/2024 15:40 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/11/2024 15:55 3:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 12:55 End Test 15:55 3:00 2.88 1.082 4000 19000 0.72 1.14 2.16 0.00 0.00 Tested By: Penetration Depth of Outer Ring:Depth to water table:3 inches Start / End Date MM/DD/YY Time HR:MIN Elapsed Time Chg/(Total) Min Not encountered in 36" Liquid level maintained using:( X ) Flow Valve ( ) Float Valve ( ) Mariotte Tubes Liquid Temp (F) Flow Readings Infiltration Rate Ground Temperature N.Curtis Water 3000 1.08 1 500 4000 1.08 500 1.08 Infiltrometer Recording Chart Marriotte Tube Volume 3000 10000 Project Identification:24-0771 Soil Type: Test Location: spsm Outlot D1 Trial # 2.16 1.44 1.44 5 500 2000 1.08 4 500 2000 3 500 2000 1.08 0.00 7 500 2000 1.08 1.44 6 500 2000 1.08 8 500 2000 1.08 0.0015 11 10 0.0014 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 16 22 0.00 0.00 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00170.00 0.00 9 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.00 1.44 1.44 0.00 Final Results 21 24 23 18 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Infiltration in Inches (3 Hour Test) #2 Constants Area cm2 Depth of Liquid (cm) Liquid Container Number Inner Ring 729 11.0 1 Elevation:Annular Space 2189 11.0 2 Liquid: Remarks Inner Ring Reading cm Inner Maroitte Tube Flow Annular Space Reading cm Annular Space Marriotte Tube Flow (ml) Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Annular Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Ground Temp Depth (in) Temp at Depth (F) Weather conditions Etc... Hourly Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Start Test 10/14/2024 9:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 9:15 0:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 9:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 9:30 0:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 9:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 9:45 0:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 9:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 10:00 1:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 10:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 10:15 1:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 10:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 10:30 1:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 10:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 10:45 1:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 10:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:00 2:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:00 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:15 2:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:15 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:30 2:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:30 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:45 2:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:45 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:00 3:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 9:00 End Test 12:00 3:00 8.63 5.672 18500 70000 3.33 4.20 9.99 0.00 0.00 Tested By: Penetration Depth of Outer Ring:Depth to water table:3 inches Start / End Date MM/DD/YY Time HR:MIN Elapsed Time Chg/(Total) Min Not Encoutered in 36" Liquid level maintained using:( X ) Flow Valve ( ) Float Valve ( ) Mariotte Tubes Liquid Temp (F) Flow Readings Infiltration Rate Ground Temperature N.Curtis Water 10000 6.48 1 3500 12000 7.56 3000 4.32 Infiltrometer Recording Chart Marriotte Tube Volume 3000 10000 Project Identification:24-0771 Soil Type: Test Location: spsm Outlot D-2 Trial # 7.19 5.76 5.76 5 2000 8000 4.32 4 2000 8000 3 2000 8000 4.32 0.00 7 2000 8000 4.32 5.76 6 2000 8000 4.32 8 2000 8000 4.32 0.0015 11 10 0.0014 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 16 22 0.00 0.00 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00170.00 0.00 9 0.00 4.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.76 0.00 5.76 5.76 0.00 Final Results 21 24 23 18 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Infiltration in Inches (3 Hour Test) #3 Constants Area cm2 Depth of Liquid (cm) Liquid Container Number Inner Ring 729 11.0 1 Elevation:Annular Space 2189 11.0 2 Liquid: Remarks Inner Ring Reading cm Inner Maroitte Tube Flow Annular Space Reading cm Annular Space Marriotte Tube Flow (ml) Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Annular Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Ground Temp Depth (in) Temp at Depth (F) Weather conditions Etc... Hourly Inner Infiltration Rate (Inch/h) Start Test 10/14/2024 11:20 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:35 0:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:35 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 11:50 0:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 11:50 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:05 0:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 12:05 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:20 1:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 12:20 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:35 1:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 12:35 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 12:50 1:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 12:50 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 13:05 1:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 13:05 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 13:20 2:00 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 13:20 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 13:35 2:15 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 13:35 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 13:50 2:30 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 13:50 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 14:05 2:45 n/a n/a Start Test 10/14/2024 14:05 0:15 63.0 End Test 10/14/2024 14:20 3:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 0:00 63.0 End Test 0:00 n/a n/a Start Test 11:20 End Test 14:20 3:00 10.07 7.022 21000 86000 3.78 5.16 11.34 0.00 0.00 Tested By: Penetration Depth of Outer Ring:Depth to water table:3 inches Start / End Date MM/DD/YY Time HR:MIN Elapsed Time Chg/(Total) Min Not Encoutered in 36" Liquid level maintained using:( X ) Flow Valve ( ) Float Valve ( ) Mariotte Tubes Liquid Temp (F) Flow Readings Infiltration Rate Ground Temperature N.Curtis Water 12000 7.56 1 4500 14000 9.72 3500 5.40 Infiltrometer Recording Chart Marriotte Tube Volume 3000 10000 Project Identification:24-0771 Soil Type: Test Location: spsm Outlot E Trial # 8.63 7.19 7.19 5 2000 10000 4.32 4 2500 10000 3 2500 10000 5.40 0.00 7 2000 10000 4.32 7.19 6 2000 10000 4.32 8 2000 10000 4.32 0.0015 11 10 0.0014 0.00 0.00 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13 0.00 0.00 16 22 0.00 0.00 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00170.00 0.00 9 0.00 4.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.19 0.00 7.19 7.19 0.00 Final Results 21 24 23 18 0.00 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Infiltration in Inches (3 Hour Test) #4 EXHIBIT: POSSIBLE FUTURE ROAD EXTENTION PRELIMINARY PLAT OF HAVEN RIDGE WEST PRELIMARY PLAT OF MEADOWBROOK 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OUTLOT B 89TH STREET NE PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 8 9 T H S T R E E T N E CO U N T R Y A V E 1 2 4 5 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD Outlot A (in green) = 3.19 acres Outlot B (in green) = 0.23 acres Outlot C (in green) = 0.34 acres Total = 3.76 acres Park ded. req'd = 5.99 acres - 3.76 acres provided = 2.23 acres PARK DEDICATION EXHIBIT MEADOWBROOK 30 ' E A S E M E N T 1 BMX PARKS Initial Research Cottage Grove Bike Park, MN 7050 Meadow Grass Ave S, Cottage Grove, MN 55016 • The 2.4-acre bike park includes a pump track, dirt jumps, a mountain bike skills area and a four- cross (mountain cross) track. A tot track and slope style course are in the master plan, but not currently built. Once complete it will be the largest park (to -date) in Minnesota Taft Park Bike Park, Richfield, MN 62nd Street and Bloomington Avenue Located on the west side of Taft Park • The park features off-road bike experiences like berms, rollers, jumps, rock features, sloped wood decking, and pump tracks (including a main track and one for younger riders and adaptive bikes). The park is a partnership between the City of Richfield and Three Rivers Park District. • Size of a baseball field? Eagan BMX Park, MN • .75-acres • Moved roughly 3,000 yards of dirt to add amenities to the pre-existing bike track Crow Rover BMX Park, St. Michael, MN • National Caliber technical BMX Race Track. 2 • 1300’ long with a downhill dragstrip 1st Straight. Carver Lake Bike Park in Woodbury, MN • Approximately the size of football field • The bike park playground will be maintained by volunteers from the Minnesota Off-Road Cyclists organization • The bike park playground is located at Carver Lake Park in the open field area just off the main park entrance road. The bike park playground has four designated areas to provide a full progression of riding and learning including: Bicycle playground, Tot track, Pump track , and Advanced skills loop with technical trail features Perkins Hill Park, MN 300 34th Ave. N Minneapolis, MN 55411 • Asphalt Pump Track • This is the longest asphalt pump track in Minnesota • Pump Track Approx 900' / Park itself 3.31 Acres https://www.minneapolisparks.org/_asset/9pzrrt/phpi_nsamp.pdf Keene Creek Bike Park, Duluth, MN • Roughly 1-acre near, and partially underneath, Interstate-35 • The conceptual design calls for a dirt jump plaza, pump track, and bicycle playground area with wooden features designed to increase rider handling skills and competency 3 Rotary Natural Play Hill & Bike Park, Moorhead, MN • 1.26-acre Rotary Play Hill is located at Moorhead’s Riverfront Park - 600 1 Ave N • The Bike Park has been included, with features including a teeter totter, log roller, tabletop plank, bridge deck, mounds, rock patch and bike sidewinder ramp Minneapolis Bike Parks, MN • Perkins Hill Park (Asphalt Pump Track) - 300 34th Ave N, Minneapolis o This is the longest asphalt pump track in Minnesota o Park itself 3.31 Acres / Pump Track Approx 900' • Bryn Mawr Meadows (Bike Skills Course) - 601 Morgan Ave S, Minneapolis – • Hall Park (Bike Skills Park) - 1524 Aldrich Ave N, Minneapolis – Pineview Park BMX, St. Cloud, MN Pineview Park BMX is a non-profit, BMX racing facility. It is sanctioned by USA BMX and the property is leased from the City of St. Cloud Blue Lake Bike Park, California • Though the park is less than 5 acres, Blue Lake is a small community of just over 1200 residents • This park will bring together participants of all ages and abilities. There is a designated area for kids and small children riding small bikes and striders. There will be a paved pump track to serve youth and developing skateboarders, scooter riders, roller skaters, bike riders, and wheelchair users. Also, there is a moderately difficult bike park area for parents and advanced bicyclists. • The facility will include a USA-BMX-sanctioned racetrack, jump flow lines and a pump track. 4 -- Resources: Bike Park Examples: Bike parks come in all different shapes and sizes. It is also likely that bike parks mean something a little different to each person. Below are some additional examples of existing bike parks in different cities. Bike Park and Pump Track Builders: These are a few professional trail builders and manufacturers who build bike parks, pump tracks, and park features. Click the names of the companies to see some of their work in action and let your imagination run wild. • Velosolutions • Progressive Bike Ramps • Pathfinder Trail Building • Rock Solid Trail Contractors • Pumptrax USA • Clark & Kent Contractors • Action Sports Construction • Alpine Bike Parks • Fast Racks 5 Other Resources: https://www.mplsbikeparks.org/resources https://pages.qbp.com/rs/796-XAK-811/images/2023_QBP_Impact_Report.pdf?version=0 -- How many acres are needed for a BMX race facility? 2-3 acres will support a full-scale BMX track which is located in an existing park or complex which already includes parking. 3-5 acres will be required for a facility which will need to incorporate parking and additional amenities. https://www.usabmx.com/site/sections/349 - What are the dimensions of the track area itself? A typical track will take up a space of 150’ x 350’. To include spectators, you will need a total area of approximately 400’ x 500’. https://www.usabmx.com/site/sections/349 -- The size of a BMX bike park can vary depending on its intended use: • Full-scale BMX track - A full-scale BMX track can be built in a park or complex that's 2–3 acres in size. • BMX freestyle park - A BMX freestyle park that can host local and national events should be at least 15 meters wide and 25 meters long. It should also have basic elements like quarter pipes, hips, a jump box, ledges, and walls. • BMX bike park for all ability levels - A BMX bike park that's designed for riders of all ability levels can be 25,000 sq ft, like the Chandler Bike Park in Arizona. Other considerations for BMX bike parks include: • Parking: A facility that can attract people from outside the city should have enough parking for daily use, plus overflow parking for large events. • Support infrastructure: A BMX bike park should have restrooms, shade structures, picnic areas, and a spectator area. 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 130, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757 Memorandum Date: October 1st, 2024 To: Roxy Robertson (WSB), City of Monticello (LGU) CC: Art Plante, JP Brooks Builders From: Mark Kjolhaug, Kat Dickerson, Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) Re: Site Assessment for Wetlands and No Wetland Determination EDMONSON AVE, MONTICELLO KES# 2024-151 The 56.46-acre site Edmonson Ave in Monticello was inspected on September 6 th, 2024, for the presence and extent of wetlands by Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES). No wetlands were identified or delineated on the property. The site was located in Section 23, Township 121 North, Range 25 West, City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. The site was located east of Minnesota State Highway 25 and south of Interstate 94. More specifically, the site is south of School Boulevard along Edmonson Avenue (Figure 1). The property corresponded to the Wright County PID: 155500231200 [56.46 acres]. The site contained cultivated fields, woodlands, and a powerline alley with ATV paths located underneath. The cultivated fields were planted with soybeans for the 2024 growing season. The woodlands consisted of boxelder and common buckthorn trees with an understory of staghorn sumac, common buckthorn shrubs, Virginia creeper, riverbank grape, and Canada goldenrod. Vegetation beneath the powerlines consisted of Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and giant ragweed with occasional patches of sandbar willow and red osier dogwood. Topography on the site peaked on the southern border (966 ft MSL) and was lowest in the northwest corner (948 ft MSL). The surrounding land uses consisted of single-family homes and cultivated fields. No standing water was observed throughout the site during the field review. Existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. An offsite aerial review was completed for areas currently and previously being farmed. No areas contained any potential wetland signatures during the review. No areas met wetland hydrology criteria (Attachment D). 2 Attachment A of this memo includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted to the City of Monticello to request concurrence with the no-wetland determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Wetland Delineation Methodology 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 with a sub-meter accuracy GPS unit. Figure 2 does not constitute an official survey product. 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 8.2, 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 2020 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations Methodology 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 Guidance for Offsite Hydrology/Wetland Determinations (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) 2016) 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 3 precipitation conditions to identify areas that have wetland hydrology signatures during periods of typical precipitation during the growing season (typically mid-April through mid-October). 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 six 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 Code Classification DO Drowned out AP Altered pattern NC Not cropped NV Normal vegetation SW Standing water NSS No soil wetness signature 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 1991-2020. All other photography utilized acquisition dates provided in the layers metadata. Review of NWI, Soils, DNR, and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) did not show any wetlands within or near site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) did not show any predominantly hydric or hydric soil types within site boundaries. Forada sandy loam (predominately hydric) was located on the eastern site boundary. Soil types mapped on the property are listed in Table 2, and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. 4 Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Edmonson Avenue site. Symbol Soil Name Acres % of Area % Hydric Hydric Category 375 Forada sandy loam, 0-2% slopes 0.0 0.0% 85 Predominantly Hydric 406 Dorset sandy loam, 0-2% slopes 35.1 62.2% 5 Predominantly Non- Hydric 1377B Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2-6% slopes 19.7 34.9% 0 Non-Hydric 1975 Oylen sandy loam, 0-2% slopes 0.3 0.5% 10 Predominantly Non- Hydric D61A Hubbard-Verndale, acid substratum, complex, Mississippi River Valley, 0-3% slopes 1.4 2.4% 1 Predominantly Non- Hydric The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) identified no Public Wetlands, Waters, or Watercourses within 1000 feet of the site boundaries (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond surface water feature within 1000 feet of the site boundaries (Figure 6). Farmed Signature Interpretation 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. This assessment was used to determine if there were any wetland signatures in the annually farmed areas on site. No wetland signatures were found in wet years, and one wet year (2023) was used in Figure 7. Some trees were removed from the site in 2009, and these locations can be seen in aerial photographs from 2010 to 2016. These locations appeared to be potential wetland signatures (Altered Patterns) but were the result of plowing around stumps. No-Wetland Determination The site was examined on September 6th, 2024, for potential wetlands. At the time of the visit, climatic conditions were atypical (wet) according to the gridded database method, and within the normal range based on the 30-day rolling total. The 30-day rolling total showed precipitation levels to be 2-7 inches above the normal precipitation range for approximately 90 days before the site visit with 1.99 inches of precipitation in the two weeks prior (Attachment C). Vegetation was actively growing at the time of the site visit. Three sample points were taken within depressions in the cultivated field and under the powerlines due to some visible hydrophytic vegetation and the potential for hydrology. None of the sample points contained hydric soil indicators or primary hydric indicators. Data sheets for sample points are provided in Attachment B. 5 There was a small, wooded area in the southeastern area of the cropland. During the site visit, this wooded area was determined to be on a slight hill and contained rocks, logs, and other field debris. This area was determined to be non-wetland during the site visit due to the lack of wetland hydrology, hydrophytic plants, and wetland soils. No hydric soils were mapped on-site, and no wetlands were identified on the NWI. No other depressional areas or hydrophytic vegetation was observed within the site boundaries. Requested Approvals No wetlands were identified or delineated on the Edmonson Avenue property. Attachment A of this memo includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted to the City of Monticello to request concurrence with the no-wetland determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Please contact Kat Dickerson at kat@kjolhaugenv.com if you have any questions regarding this report. Thank you. 6 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: Kat Dickerson, Wetland/Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Professional In-Training No. 5439 Gregor Willms, Wetland Technician Report prepared by: Kat Dickerson, Wetland/Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Professional In-Training No. 5439 Gregor Willms, Wetland Technician Report reviewed by: ________________________________ Date: October 1 st, 2024 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 7 6430 20TH ST NE No Wetland Determination Figures: Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Existing Conditions Map Figure 3 – NWI Map Figure 4 – Soil Survey Map Figure 5 – DNR Public Waters Map Figure 6 – National Hydrography Dataset Map Figure 7 – Offsite Hydrology Assessment © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Map JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 4,000 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Source: Open Street Map MN Hwy 25 Edmonson Ave NE I-94 Fenning Ave 85th St NE School Blvd Chelsea Rd W Fallon Ave NE Mississippi River Broadway St E (CR 75) !( !( !( SPA SPB SPC Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (TCM 2023) Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend !(Sample Point Wright County Lidar Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota PEM1C PUBG PEM1C PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PAB G PUBGx PEM1A Figure 3 - National Wet lands Inventory Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Site Boun dary PABG PEM1A PEM1C PU BG PU BGx Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USFWS JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota 406 D61A 1377B 1377B 441 406 441 19751377B 1377B 375 1368 D67B 1087B10151379B 1377B 375 406 W 1975 Figure 4 - Soil Survey Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Boundary Hydric/Predominantly Hydric Partially Hydric Predominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota M ap Unit Symbol M ap Unit Name Hydric Rating 375 Forada sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Predominantly Hydric 406 Dorset sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Predominantly Non-Hydric 1377B Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2-6% slopes Non-Hydric 1975 Oylen sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Predominantly Non-Hydric D61A Hubbard-Verndale, acid substratum, complex, Mississippi River Valley, 0-3% slopes Predominantly Non-Hydric Unnamed (86-75 W) Unnamed (86-393 W) Unnamed (86-77 W) Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 2,000 Feet Leg end Site Boundary Public Waters Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 2,000 Feet Leg end Site Boundary HYDRO Junction Stream/R iver Lake/Pond Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota 960 962 9 6 4 966 9 5 8 968 95 6 954 95 2950 94 8946 944 942 968 9 5 6 960 962 952 964 950 9 6 6 960 956 9 6 8 958 9 6 8 9 6 4 952 9 4 8 960 964 958 962 952 948 962 964 946 962 958 954 960 95 6 962 962 960 956 960 960 956 962 960 9 4 6 9 4 8 954 956 9 5 4 950 95 4 9 5 8 9 5 8 9 5 0 960 950 96 2 962 95 8 9 6 0 958 958 9 5 2 962 962 964 9 6 6 968 962 962 9 6 8 958 9 5 4 9 5 0 Figure 7 - Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas (5/2/2023, Google Earth, Wet) JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Bo un dary Wrigh t Co unty L id ar Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons 2023 30th%70th%Actual Condition Inches above 70%Mar 1.04 1.88 1.79 Normal --Apr 1.71 2.94 3.14 Wet 0.2May2.48 4.38 3.42 Normal --Jun 3.13 5.12 0.74 Dry --Jul 2.48 4.21 2.71 Normal --Aug 2.84 4.47 3.38 Normal --Sep 2.02 4.03 4.16 Wet 0.13Oct1.12 2.75 4.25 Wet 1.5 No Wetland Signatures Found 8 6430 20TH ST NE No Wetland Determination Attachment A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 3 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: JP Brooks, Edmonson Ave NE, Monticello (KES 2024- ) 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: JP Brooks/JPB Land; c/o Art Plante Mailing Address: 13700 Reimer Drive N, Suite 100, Maple Grove, MN 55311 Phone: 763-285-4795 / 612-804-5742 E-mail Address: art@jpbrooks.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Kjolhaug Environmental Services; c/o Kat Dickerson Mailing Address: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 701-261-0541 E-mail Address: kat@kjolhaugenv.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Wright City/Township: Monticello Parcel ID and/or Address: 155500231200 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): 23, 121N, 25W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 45.277851, -93.794026 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): ~56.5 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. Wetland Delineation concurrence/approval Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 4 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: JP Brooks, Edmonson Ave NE, Monticello (KES 2024- ) 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 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: I hereby authorize 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. 9/9/2024 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 5 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: JP Brooks, Edmonson Ave NE, Monticello (KES 2024- ) 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 request 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 area (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 absent 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 9 6430 20TH ST NE No Wetland Determination Attachment B Data Sheets 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): K. Dickerson, G.Willms Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: JPB Land LLC State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N Dorset sandy loam, 0-2% slopes NWI Classification: 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation is atypical (wet) per gridded database and normal per 30-day rolling total. The area had been 2-7 inches above the normal precip range in the 90 days prior to site visit. 1.99 inches of rain fell in the 2 weeks prior to the site visit. N Dominan t Species Indicator Status Salix interior 60 Y FACW Cornus sericea 10 N FACW 0 0 0 0 70 3.00 140 420 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Bromus inermis 50 Y FACU (Plot size: 5 Solidago canadensis 10 N FACU Trifolium pratense 5 N Ambrosia artemisiifolia 5 N FACU Y 0 Edmonson Avenue Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 70 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: FACU 70 140 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 70 280 50.00% PI greater than 3. 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: Monticello/Wright Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/6/24 Sampling Point:SPAMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave S:23 T:121N R:25W (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) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SPA Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** 0-10 10YR 3/3 100 clay loam 10-24 10YR 5/3 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M sandy 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): Histosol (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 observed within inches of the soil surface. *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 24-28 Fill material 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: Monticello/Wright Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/6/24 Sampling Point:SPBMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave S:23 T:121N R:25W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Edmonson Avenue Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 60 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 0 0 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 1 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Ambrosia trifida 60 Y FAC (Plot size: 5 0 3.00 60 180 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 60 180 Absolute % Cover30 If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation is atypical (wet) per gridded database and normal per 30-day rolling total. The area had been 2-7 inches above the normal precip range in the 90 days prior to site visit. 1.99 inches of rain fell in the 2 weeks prior to the site visit. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Status Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2-6% slopes NWI Classification: 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Investigator(s): K. Dickerson, G. Willms Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: JPB Land LLC 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) Aquatic Fauna (B13)X True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X 20-25 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M sandy clay loam fill material No free water or saturation observed within 25 inches of the soil surface. *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): Histosol (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) 10-20 10YR 5/2 100 sandy clay loam fill material 0-10 10YR 3/2 100 sandy clay loam fill material Sampling Point:SPB 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) Stressed/absent 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: Monticello/Wright Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/6/24 Sampling Point:SPCMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear S:23 T:121N R:25W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Edmonson Avenue Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 0 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 0 0 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 0 0 0 0 0.00% N 0 (Plot size: 5 0 0 0 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 If yes, optional wetland site ID: Cultivated crops = not normal circumstances. Precipitation is atypical (wet) per gridded database and normal per 30-day rolling total. The area had been 2-7 inches above the normal precip range in the 90 days prior to site visit. 1.99 inches of rain fell in the 2 weeks prior to the site visit. N Dominan t Species Indicator Status X N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2-6% slopes NWI Classification: 0-1% Lat: Long: Datum: Investigator(s): K. Dickerson Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: JPB Land LLC 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) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X No free water or saturation observed within 32 inches of the soil surface. *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): Histosol (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) 20-32 10YR 3/4 100 sandy loam 0-20 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam Sampling Point:SPC Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region 10 6430 20TH ST NE No Wetland Determination Attachment C Precipitation Data 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: Wright township number: 121N township name: Monticello (west)range number: 25W nearest community: Monticello section number: 20 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Friday, September 6, 2024 Score using 1991-2020 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: August 2024 second prior month: July 2024 third prior month: June 2024 estimated precipitation total for this location:3.80 6.92R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.16 2.81 3.36 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.85 4.62 4.37 type of month: dry normal wet normal wet monthly score 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 9/10/24, 3:19 PM Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database https://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=432646&passYutm83=5013743&passcounty=Wright&p…1/1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6/1 6/15 6/29 7/13 7/27 8/10 8/24 9/7 Da i l y a n d m o n t h l y t o t a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n c h e s ) daily precip 30d rolling total monthly precip 30 - day rolling total Climate Conditions 2024 Edmonson Avenue Monticello, MN normal precip range Site Visit: September 6th, 2024 Monticello, Minnesota: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Site Visit: September 6th, 2024 Monthly Totals: 2024 Target: T 121N R 25W S 20, Lat: 45.27396 Lon: -93.85868 mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre Jan 2024 86 120N 26W 8 SWCD .16 Feb 2024 86 120N 26W 8 SWCD .85 Mar 2024 86 120N 26W 8 SWCD 1.94 Apr 2024 86 120N 25W 29 SWCD 5.18 May 2024 86 120N 25W 29 SWCD 5.12 Jun 2024 86 120N 25W 29 SWCD 7.66 Jul 2024 86 120N 26W 8 SWCD 7.23 Aug 2024 86 120N 25W 29 SWCD 7.79 June/July/August/September Daily Records Date Precip. Jun 1, 2024 0 Jun 2, 2024 0 Jun 3, 2024 2.64 Jun 4, 2024 0 Jun 5, 2024 .70 Jun 6, 2024 .02 Jun 7, 2024 0 Jun 8, 2024 0 Jun 9, 2024 0 Jun 10, 2024 .06 Jun 11, 2024 .12 Jun 12, 2024 .06 Jun 13, 2024 .07 Jun 14, 2024 0 Jun 15, 2024 0 Jun 16, 2024 0 Jun 17, 2024 2.50 Jun 18, 2024 .22 Jun 19, 2024 0 Jun 20, 2024 .26 Jun 21, 2024 .17 Jun 22, 2024 0 Jun 23, 2024 0 Jun 24, 2024 .38 Jun 25, 2024 0 Jun 26, 2024 0 Jun 27, 2024 0 Jun 28, 2024 .46 Jun 29, 2024 0 Jun 30, 2024 0 1991-2020 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT 30% 0.44 0.54 1.23 1.80 2.68 3.36 2.81 3.16 1.98 1.38 0.82 0.66 16.23 28.53 28.51 70% 0.95 1.34 1.98 3.49 5.18 4.37 4.62 4.85 4.98 3.90 1.78 1.68 23.86 34.21 34.29 mean 0.81 0.97 1.66 2.89 4.19 4.35 4.13 4.21 3.37 2.78 1.50 1.20 20.25 32.06 32.04 Date Precip. Jul 1, 2024 0 Jul 2, 2024 0 Jul 3, 2024 0 Jul 4, 2024 0 Jul 5, 2024 .64 Jul 6, 2024 0 Jul 7, 2024 0 Jul 8, 2024 0 Jul 9, 2024 .20 Jul 10, 2024 .05 Jul 11, 2024 .44 Jul 12, 2024 0 Jul 13, 2024 0 Jul 14, 2024 1.27 Jul 15, 2024 .07 Jul 16, 2024 0 Jul 17, 2024 0 Jul 18, 2024 0 Jul 19, 2024 0 Jul 20, 2024 0 Jul 21, 2024 0 Jul 22, 2024 0 Jul 23, 2024 .13 Jul 24, 2024 0 Jul 25, 2024 0 Jul 26, 2024 0 Jul 27, 2024 0 Jul 28, 2024 0 Jul 29, 2024 3.16 Jul 30, 2024 0 Jul 31, 2024 1.27 Date Precip. Aug 1, 2024 .97 Aug 2, 2024 0 Aug 3, 2024 0 Aug 4, 2024 0 Aug 5, 2024 1.62 Aug 6, 2024 1.91 Aug 7, 2024 .02 Aug 8, 2024 .02 Aug 9, 2024 0 Aug 10, 2024 0 Aug 11, 2024 0 Aug 12, 2024 0 Aug 13, 2024 0 Aug 14, 2024 0 Aug 15, 2024 .94 Aug 16, 2024 0 Aug 17, 2024 0 Aug 18, 2024 0 Aug 19, 2024 .10 Aug 20, 2024 0 Aug 21, 2024 0 Aug 22, 2024 0 Aug 23, 2024 .26 Aug 24, 2024 0 Aug 25, 2024 0 Aug 26, 2024 0 Aug 27, 2024 1.62 Aug 28, 2024 .01 Aug 29, 2024 0 Aug 30, 2024 .32 Aug 31, 2024 0 Date Precip. Sep 1, 2024 0 Sep 2, 2024 0 Sep 3, 2024 0 Sep 4, 2024 0 Sep 5, 2024 .04 Sep 6, 2024 0 Sep 7, 2024 .07 Sep 8, 2024 0 Sep 9, 2024 0 Site Visit: September 6th, 2024 BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit: City of Monticello County: Wright Applicant Name: JP Brooks (Art Plante) Applicant Representative: Kjolhaug Env (Kat Dickerson) Project Name: Edmonson Ave LGU Project No. (if any): 024318-000 Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 10/21/2024 Date of LGU Decision: 11/18/2024 Date this Notice was Sent: 11/18/2024 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: NA 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 Comments from the TEP (BWSR, SWCD) were provided during the comment period regarding areas of the site with soils close to hydric indicators, and areas of the site with potential secondary hydrology indicators. 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): Joint Application ☒ Summary: The LGU reviewed the site with the applicant representative on 11/13/2024. The site is very disturbed and areas that appear as low points on aerial photography appear to have been excavated during the installation of the utility line. The low points along the utility line contained mostly upland vegetation and appear to not support hydrology. Soils were double checked at the field review and were as indicated on the submitted data sheets. The LGU agrees with the determination that the site has no wetlands. 1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations. Attached Project Documents ☒ Site Location Map ☒ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): 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) Contact Rachel Leonard, City of Monticello, 505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN 55362. Notice Distribution (include name) Required on all notices: ☒ SWCD TEP Member: Andrew.Grean, Andrew.grean@mn.nacdet.net ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Cade Steffenson, cade.steffenson@state.mn.us ☒ LGU TEP Member (if different than LGU contact): Angela.Schumann, angela.schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us ☒ DNR Representative: James Bedell, James.Bedell@state.mn.us ☐ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.: ☒ Applicant: art@jpbrooks.com ☒ Agent/Consultant: Kat Dickerson, Kjolhaug Env; Kat@kjolhaugenv.com 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: 11/18/2024 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. 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 130, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757 Memorandum Date: October 1st, 2024 To: Roxy Robertson (WSB), City of Monticello (LGU) CC: Art Plante, JP Brooks Builders From: Mark Kjolhaug, Kat Dickerson, Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) Re: Site Assessment for Wetlands and No Wetland Determination EDMONSON AVE, MONTICELLO KES# 2024-151 The 56.46-acre site Edmonson Ave in Monticello was inspected on September 6 th, 2024, for the presence and extent of wetlands by Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES). No wetlands were identified or delineated on the property. The site was located in Section 23, Township 121 North, Range 25 West, City of Monticello, Wright County, Minnesota. The site was located east of Minnesota State Highway 25 and south of Interstate 94. More specifically, the site is south of School Boulevard along Edmonson Avenue (Figure 1). The property corresponded to the Wright County PID: 155500231200 [56.46 acres]. The site contained cultivated fields, woodlands, and a powerline alley with ATV paths located underneath. The cultivated fields were planted with soybeans for the 2024 growing season. The woodlands consisted of boxelder and common buckthorn trees with an understory of staghorn sumac, common buckthorn shrubs, Virginia creeper, riverbank grape, and Canada goldenrod. Vegetation beneath the powerlines consisted of Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and giant ragweed with occasional patches of sandbar willow and red osier dogwood. Topography on the site peaked on the southern border (966 ft MSL) and was lowest in the northwest corner (948 ft MSL). The surrounding land uses consisted of single-family homes and cultivated fields. No standing water was observed throughout the site during the field review. Existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. An offsite aerial review was completed for areas currently and previously being farmed. No areas contained any potential wetland signatures during the review. No areas met wetland hydrology criteria (Attachment D). Amended October 21st, 2024 2 Attachment A of this memo includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted to the City of Monticello to request concurrence with the no-wetland determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Wetland Delineation Methodology 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 with a sub-meter accuracy GPS unit. Figure 2 does not constitute an official survey product. 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 8.2, 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 2020 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). Aerial Review for Offsite Hydrology Determinations Methodology 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 Guidance for Offsite Hydrology/Wetland Determinations (Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) 2016) 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 3 precipitation conditions to identify areas that have wetland hydrology signatures during periods of typical precipitation during the growing season (typically mid-April through mid-October). 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 six 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 Code Classification DO Drowned out AP Altered pattern NC Not cropped NV Normal vegetation SW Standing water NSS No soil wetness signature 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 1991-2020. All other photography utilized acquisition dates provided in the layers metadata. Review of NWI, Soils, DNR, and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) did not show any wetlands within or near site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) did not show any predominantly hydric or hydric soil types within site boundaries. Forada sandy loam (predominately hydric) was located on the eastern site boundary. Soil types mapped on the property are listed in Table 2, and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. 4 Table 2. Soil types mapped on the Edmonson Avenue site. Symbol Soil Name Acres % of Area % Hydric Hydric Category 375 Forada sandy loam, 0-2% slopes 0.0 0.0% 85 Predominantly Hydric 406 Dorset sandy loam, 0-2% slopes 35.1 62.2% 5 Predominantly Non- Hydric 1377B Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2-6% slopes 19.7 34.9% 0 Non-Hydric 1975 Oylen sandy loam, 0-2% slopes 0.3 0.5% 10 Predominantly Non- Hydric D61A Hubbard-Verndale, acid substratum, complex, Mississippi River Valley, 0-3% slopes 1.4 2.4% 1 Predominantly Non- Hydric The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) identified no Public Wetlands, Waters, or Watercourses within 1000 feet of the site boundaries (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond surface water feature within 1000 feet of the site boundaries (Figure 6). Farmed Signature Interpretation 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. This assessment was used to determine if there were any wetland signatures in the annually farmed areas on site. No wetland signatures were found in wet years, and one wet year (2023) was used in Figure 7. Some trees were removed from the site in 2009, and these locations can be seen in aerial photographs from 2010 to 2016. These locations appeared to be potential wetland signatures (Altered Patterns) but were the result of plowing around stumps. No-Wetland Determination The site was examined on September 6th, 2024, for potential wetlands. At the time of the visit, climatic conditions were atypical (wet) according to the gridded database method, and within the normal range based on the 30-day rolling total. The 30-day rolling total showed precipitation levels to be 2-7 inches above the normal precipitation range for approximately 90 days before the site visit with 1.99 inches of precipitation in the two weeks prior (Attachment C). Vegetation was actively growing at the time of the site visit. Three sample points were taken within depressions in the cultivated field and under the powerlines due to some visible hydrophytic vegetation and the potential for hydrology. None of the sample points contained hydric soil indicators or primary hydric indicators. Data sheets for sample points are provided in Attachment B. 5 There was a small, wooded area in the southeastern area of the cropland. During the site visit, this wooded area was determined to be on a slight hill and contained rocks, logs, and other field debris. This area was determined to be non-wetland during the site visit due to the lack of wetland hydrology, hydrophytic plants, and wetland soils. No hydric soils were mapped on-site, and no wetlands were identified on the NWI. No other depressional areas or hydrophytic vegetation was observed within the site boundaries. Requested Approvals No wetlands were identified or delineated on the Edmonson Avenue property. Attachment A of this memo includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted to the City of Monticello to request concurrence with the no-wetland determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Please contact Kat Dickerson at kat@kjolhaugenv.com if you have any questions regarding this report. Thank you. 6 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: Kat Dickerson, Wetland/Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Professional In-Training No. 5439 Gregor Willms, Wetland Technician Report prepared by: Kat Dickerson, Wetland/Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Professional In-Training No. 5439 Gregor Willms, Wetland Technician Report reviewed by: ________________________________ Date: October 1 st, 2024 Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 7 No Wetland Determination Figures: Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Existing Conditions Map Figure 3 – NWI Map Figure 4 – Soil Survey Map Figure 5 – DNR Public Waters Map Figure 6 – National Hydrography Dataset Map Figure 7 – Offsite Hydrology Assessment 䕤浯湳潮⁁癥Ⱐ䵯湴楣敬汯 © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA Figure 1 - Site Location Map JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 4,000 Feet Legend Site Boun dary Source: Open Street Map MN Hwy 25 Edmonson Ave NE I-94 Fenning Ave 85th St NE School Blvd Chelsea Rd W Fallon Ave NE Mississippi River Broadway St E (CR 75) !( !( !( 9 6 4 956 960 9 6 8 9 6 2 956 960 9 5 8 952 956 954 9 5 6 94 2 9 6 4 9 6 4 960 960 956 9 6 8 950 9 5 0 940 956958 9 6 8 964 950 9 5 8 9 6 2 968 9 6 6 954 9 5 6 9 5 8 954 956 962 9 5 6 9 6 4 946 964 9 4 2 9 6 6 9 6 0 958 95 6 962 9 6 6 9 4 4 958 95 2 964 946 948 9 6 8 9 6 4 948 954 9 5 2 950 966 954 950 9 4 8 960 946 958 9 5 8 968 960 944 962 9 5 6 966 9 6 2 9 6 2 956 954 964 9 4 2 9 6 0 954 9 4 8 942 958 958 960 9 6 6 964 9 6 2 956 956 9 5 6 958 9 6 0 956 962 952 956 9 6 2 9 6 0 9 6 0 958 958 9 5 4 962 958 960 956 95 0 958 952 952 9 6 0 9 6 0 958 962 9 6 2 954 9 6 0 960 9 5 8 9 6 8 9 5 4 964 966 9 5 6 960 9 5 8 962 SPA SPB SPC Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (TCM 2023) Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend !(Sample Point Wright County Lidar Wright County Lidar Site Boundary Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota PEM1C PUBG PEM1C PEM1A PEM1A PEM1A PAB G PUBGx PEM1A Figure 3 - National Wet lands Inventory Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 750 Feet Legend Site Boun dary PABG PEM1A PEM1C PU BG PU BGx Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons, USFWS JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota 406 D61A 1377B 1377B 441 406 441 19751377B 1377B 375 1368 D67B 1087B10151379B 1377B 375 406 W 1975 Figure 4 - Soil Survey Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Boundary Hydric/Predominantly Hydric Partially Hydric Predominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota M ap Unit Symbol M ap Unit Name Hydric Rating 375 Forada sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Predominantly Hydric 406 Dorset sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Predominantly Non-Hydric 1377B Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2-6% slopes Non-Hydric 1975 Oylen sandy loam, 0-2% slopes Predominantly Non-Hydric D61A Hubbard-Verndale, acid substratum, complex, Mississippi River Valley, 0-3% slopes Predominantly Non-Hydric Unnamed (86-75 W) Unnamed (86-393 W) Unnamed (86-77 W) Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 2,000 Feet Leg end Site Boundary Public Waters Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 2,000 Feet Leg end Site Boundary HYDRO Junction Stream/R iver Lake/Pond Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota 960 962 9 6 4 966 9 5 8 968 95 6 954 95 2950 94 8946 944 942 968 9 5 6 960 962 952 964 950 9 6 6 960 956 9 6 8 958 9 6 8 9 6 4 952 9 4 8 960 964 958 962 952 948 962 964 946 962 958 954 960 95 6 962 962 960 956 960 960 956 962 960 9 4 6 9 4 8 954 956 9 5 4 950 95 4 9 5 8 9 5 8 9 5 0 960 950 96 2 962 95 8 9 6 0 958 958 9 5 2 962 962 964 9 6 6 968 962 962 9 6 8 958 9 5 4 9 5 0 Figure 7 - Offsite Hydrology Assessment Areas (5/2/2023, Google Earth, Wet) JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Bo un dary Wrigh t Co unty L id ar Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons 2023 30th%70th%Actual Condition Inches above 70%Mar 1.04 1.88 1.79 Normal --Apr 1.71 2.94 3.14 Wet 0.2May2.48 4.38 3.42 Normal --Jun 3.13 5.12 0.74 Dry --Jul 2.48 4.21 2.71 Normal --Aug 2.84 4.47 3.38 Normal --Sep 2.02 4.03 4.16 Wet 0.13Oct1.12 2.75 4.25 Wet 1.5 No Wetland Signatures Found 8 No Wetland Determination Attachment A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota 䕤浯湳潮⁁癥Ⱐ䵯湴楣敬汯 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 3 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: JP Brooks, Edmonson Ave NE, Monticello (KES 2024- ) 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: JP Brooks/JPB Land; c/o Art Plante Mailing Address: 13700 Reimer Drive N, Suite 100, Maple Grove, MN 55311 Phone: 763-285-4795 / 612-804-5742 E-mail Address: art@jpbrooks.com Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Kjolhaug Environmental Services; c/o Kat Dickerson Mailing Address: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 701-261-0541 E-mail Address: kat@kjolhaugenv.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Wright City/Township: Monticello Parcel ID and/or Address: 155500231200 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): 23, 121N, 25W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 45.277851, -93.794026 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): ~56.5 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. Wetland Delineation concurrence/approval Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 4 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: JP Brooks, Edmonson Ave NE, Monticello (KES 2024- ) 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 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: I hereby authorize 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. 9/9/2024 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form – Revised May 2021 Page 5 of 12 Project Name and/or Number: JP Brooks, Edmonson Ave NE, Monticello (KES 2024- ) 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 request 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 area (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 absent 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 9 No Wetland Determination Attachment B Data Sheets 䕤浯湳潮⁁癥Ⱐ䵯湴楣敬汯 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): K. Dickerson, G.Willms Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: JPB Land LLC State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N Dorset sandy loam, 0-2% slopes NWI Classification: 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30 If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation is atypical (wet) per gridded database and normal per 30-day rolling total. The area had been 2-7 inches above the normal precip range in the 90 days prior to site visit. 1.99 inches of rain fell in the 2 weeks prior to the site visit. N Dominan t Species Indicator Status Salix interior 60 Y FACW Cornus sericea 10 N FACW 0 0 0 0 70 3.00 140 420 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Bromus inermis 50 Y FACU (Plot size: 5 Solidago canadensis 10 N FACU Trifolium pratense 5 N Ambrosia artemisiifolia 5 N FACU Y 0 Edmonson Avenue Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 70 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: FACU 70 140 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 1 70 280 50.00% PI greater than 3. 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: Monticello/Wright Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/6/24 Sampling Point:SPAMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave S:23 T:121N R:25W (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) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sampling Point:SPA Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** 0-10 10YR 3/3 100 clay loam 10-24 10YR 5/3 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M sandy 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): Histosol (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 observed within inches of the soil surface. *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 24-28 Fill material 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: Monticello/Wright Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/6/24 Sampling Point:SPBMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave S:23 T:121N R:25W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Edmonson Avenue Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 60 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 0 0 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 1 0 0 100.00% Y 0 Ambrosia trifida 60 Y FAC (Plot size: 5 0 3.00 60 180 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 60 180 Absolute % Cover30 If yes, optional wetland site ID: Precipitation is atypical (wet) per gridded database and normal per 30-day rolling total. The area had been 2-7 inches above the normal precip range in the 90 days prior to site visit. 1.99 inches of rain fell in the 2 weeks prior to the site visit. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Status Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2-6% slopes NWI Classification: 0-2% Lat: Long: Datum: Investigator(s): K. Dickerson, G. Willms Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: JPB Land LLC 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) Aquatic Fauna (B13)X True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X 20-25 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M sandy clay loam fill material No free water or saturation observed within 25 inches of the soil surface. *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): Histosol (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) 10-20 10YR 5/2 100 sandy clay loam fill material 0-10 10YR 3/2 100 sandy clay loam fill material Sampling Point:SPB 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) Stressed/absent 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: Monticello/Wright Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 9/6/24 Sampling Point:SPCMN Local relief (concave, convex, none): linear S:23 T:121N R:25W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology Edmonson Avenue Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size: 30 0 (Plot size: 15 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 0 0 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 0 0 0 0 0.00% N 0 (Plot size: 5 0 0 0 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30 If yes, optional wetland site ID: Cultivated crops = not normal circumstances. Precipitation is atypical (wet) per gridded database and normal per 30-day rolling total. The area had been 2-7 inches above the normal precip range in the 90 days prior to site visit. 1.99 inches of rain fell in the 2 weeks prior to the site visit. N Dominan t Species Indicator Status X N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No N Dorset-Two Inlets complex, 2-6% slopes NWI Classification: 0-1% Lat: Long: Datum: Investigator(s): K. Dickerson Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: JPB Land LLC 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) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X No free water or saturation observed within 32 inches of the soil surface. *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): Histosol (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) 20-32 10YR 3/4 100 sandy loam 0-20 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam Sampling Point:SPC Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type* Loc** US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region 10 No Wetland Determination Attachment C Precipitation Data 䕤浯湳潮⁁癥Ⱐ䵯湴楣敬汯 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: Wright township number: 121N township name: Monticello (west)range number: 25W nearest community: Monticello section number: 20 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Friday, September 6, 2024 Score using 1991-2020 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: August 2024 second prior month: July 2024 third prior month: June 2024 estimated precipitation total for this location:3.80 6.92R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.16 2.81 3.36 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.85 4.62 4.37 type of month: dry normal wet normal wet monthly score 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 9/10/24, 3:19 PM Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database https://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/worksheet.asp?passXutm83=432646&passYutm83=5013743&passcounty=Wright&p…1/1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6/1 6/15 6/29 7/13 7/27 8/10 8/24 9/7 Da i l y a n d m o n t h l y t o t a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n c h e s ) daily precip 30d rolling total monthly precip 30 - day rolling total Climate Conditions 2024 Edmonson Avenue Monticello, MN normal precip range Site Visit: September 6th, 2024 Monticello, Minnesota: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Site Visit: September 6th, 2024 Monthly Totals: 2024 Target: T 121N R 25W S 20, Lat: 45.27396 Lon: -93.85868 mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn oooooooo pre Jan 2024 86 120N 26W 8 SWCD .16 Feb 2024 86 120N 26W 8 SWCD .85 Mar 2024 86 120N 26W 8 SWCD 1.94 Apr 2024 86 120N 25W 29 SWCD 5.18 May 2024 86 120N 25W 29 SWCD 5.12 Jun 2024 86 120N 25W 29 SWCD 7.66 Jul 2024 86 120N 26W 8 SWCD 7.23 Aug 2024 86 120N 25W 29 SWCD 7.79 June/July/August/September Daily Records Date Precip. Jun 1, 2024 0 Jun 2, 2024 0 Jun 3, 2024 2.64 Jun 4, 2024 0 Jun 5, 2024 .70 Jun 6, 2024 .02 Jun 7, 2024 0 Jun 8, 2024 0 Jun 9, 2024 0 Jun 10, 2024 .06 Jun 11, 2024 .12 Jun 12, 2024 .06 Jun 13, 2024 .07 Jun 14, 2024 0 Jun 15, 2024 0 Jun 16, 2024 0 Jun 17, 2024 2.50 Jun 18, 2024 .22 Jun 19, 2024 0 Jun 20, 2024 .26 Jun 21, 2024 .17 Jun 22, 2024 0 Jun 23, 2024 0 Jun 24, 2024 .38 Jun 25, 2024 0 Jun 26, 2024 0 Jun 27, 2024 0 Jun 28, 2024 .46 Jun 29, 2024 0 Jun 30, 2024 0 1991-2020 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WAT 30% 0.44 0.54 1.23 1.80 2.68 3.36 2.81 3.16 1.98 1.38 0.82 0.66 16.23 28.53 28.51 70% 0.95 1.34 1.98 3.49 5.18 4.37 4.62 4.85 4.98 3.90 1.78 1.68 23.86 34.21 34.29 mean 0.81 0.97 1.66 2.89 4.19 4.35 4.13 4.21 3.37 2.78 1.50 1.20 20.25 32.06 32.04 Date Precip. Jul 1, 2024 0 Jul 2, 2024 0 Jul 3, 2024 0 Jul 4, 2024 0 Jul 5, 2024 .64 Jul 6, 2024 0 Jul 7, 2024 0 Jul 8, 2024 0 Jul 9, 2024 .20 Jul 10, 2024 .05 Jul 11, 2024 .44 Jul 12, 2024 0 Jul 13, 2024 0 Jul 14, 2024 1.27 Jul 15, 2024 .07 Jul 16, 2024 0 Jul 17, 2024 0 Jul 18, 2024 0 Jul 19, 2024 0 Jul 20, 2024 0 Jul 21, 2024 0 Jul 22, 2024 0 Jul 23, 2024 .13 Jul 24, 2024 0 Jul 25, 2024 0 Jul 26, 2024 0 Jul 27, 2024 0 Jul 28, 2024 0 Jul 29, 2024 3.16 Jul 30, 2024 0 Jul 31, 2024 1.27 Date Precip. Aug 1, 2024 .97 Aug 2, 2024 0 Aug 3, 2024 0 Aug 4, 2024 0 Aug 5, 2024 1.62 Aug 6, 2024 1.91 Aug 7, 2024 .02 Aug 8, 2024 .02 Aug 9, 2024 0 Aug 10, 2024 0 Aug 11, 2024 0 Aug 12, 2024 0 Aug 13, 2024 0 Aug 14, 2024 0 Aug 15, 2024 .94 Aug 16, 2024 0 Aug 17, 2024 0 Aug 18, 2024 0 Aug 19, 2024 .10 Aug 20, 2024 0 Aug 21, 2024 0 Aug 22, 2024 0 Aug 23, 2024 .26 Aug 24, 2024 0 Aug 25, 2024 0 Aug 26, 2024 0 Aug 27, 2024 1.62 Aug 28, 2024 .01 Aug 29, 2024 0 Aug 30, 2024 .32 Aug 31, 2024 0 Date Precip. Sep 1, 2024 0 Sep 2, 2024 0 Sep 3, 2024 0 Sep 4, 2024 0 Sep 5, 2024 .04 Sep 6, 2024 0 Sep 7, 2024 .07 Sep 8, 2024 0 Sep 9, 2024 0 Site Visit: September 6th, 2024 Edmonson Ave, Monticello No Wetland Determination Attachment D Offsite Hydrology Review Recording Form and Aerial Photos Exhibit 1 Field data sheet reference (if applicable): Wetland Hydrology from Aerial Imagery – Recording Form Project Name: JP Brooks-Edmonson Ave Date: 9/15/2024 County: Wright Investigator: K. Dickerson Legal Description (S, T, R): S: 23, T: 121N, R: 25W Summary Table 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: Washout – Apparent Erosion – Farming Practice Feature (FP) WO - washout Date Image Taken Date Used Image Source Climate Condition (wet, dry, normal) Image Interpretation(s) No Areas Identified 5/2/2023 5/1/2023 Google Earth Wet Not normal conditions. Used as Figure 7. 8/8/2022 8/1/2022 Google Earth Dry Not normal conditions. Image not used. 6/18/20211 7/1/2021 FSA Dry Not normal conditions. Image not used. 3/16/2020 4/1/2020 Google Earth Wet Prior to growing season, and not normal conditions. Image not used. 7/30/2019 8/1/2019 FSA Normal Normal Conditions. Used as 2019 Image. 5/14/2018 5/14/2018 Google Earth Normal Normal Conditions. Used as 2018 Image. 8/31/20172 9/1//2017 FSA Dry Not normal conditions. Image not used. 5/12/2017 5/12/2017 Google Earth Wet Not normal conditions. Image not used. 4/5/2017 4/1/2017 Google Earth Normal Prior to growing season. Image not used. 6/10/2016 6/10/2016 Google Earth Normal Normal Conditions. Used as 2016 Image. 9/19/20153 10/1/2015 FSA Wet Not normal conditions. Image not used. 7/3/2013 7/3/2013 FSA Wet Not normal conditions. Image not used. 9/23/20124 10/1/2012 Google Earth Dry Not normal conditions. Image not used. 9/4/2010 9/1/2010 FSA Normal Normal Conditions. Used as 2010 Image. 6/23/2010 7/1/2010 Google Earth Wet Not normal conditions. Image not used. 6/2/2009 6/1/2009 FSA Dry Not normal conditions. Image not used. 5/21/2008 6/1/2008 Google Earth Normal Normal Conditions. Used as 2008 Image. Number of normal years 5 Number with wet signatures 0 Percent with wet signatures 0% 1 Hennepin County photo, no photo date listed in metadata. Assumed photo date of 4/1. 2 Twin Cities Metro photo metadata lists photo dates of April 4th, 5th, and 10th. Used April 5th. 3 Hennepin County photo. Assumed photo date of 4/15. 4 Twin Cities Metro photo metadata lists photo dates of April 9th, 12th, 13th, 15th, and 22nd. Used April 15th. Exhibit 1 Field data sheet reference (if applicable):____________ Wetland Determination from Aerial Imagery – Recording Form Project Name: Montgomery-Watertown Date: 7/29/2024 County: Carver Investigator: K. Dickerson Legal Description (S, T, R): S: 3, T: 117N, R: 25W Use the Decision Matrix below to complete Table 1. Hydric Soils present1 Identified on NWI or other wetland map2 Percent with wet signatures 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 Field Verification Required Wetland? No Areas Identified 1 Answer “N/A” if field verification is not required and was not conducted 5/21/2008, Google Eart h, Normal JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Bo un dary Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons No Wetland Signatures Found 960 962 9 6 4 966 9 5 8 968 95 6 954 95 2950 94 8946 944 942 9 5 6 964 946 9 6 4 962 952 9 6 8 956 958 960 960 958 964 968 960 964 9 4 8 9 6 6 9 5 4 960 962 95 2 958 962 9 4 8 95 6 968 956 962 960 956 962 9 6 8 960 946948 954 956 944 960 950 962 95 4 952 958 9 5 8 9 5 0 9 5 0 950 960 96 2 962 962 960 9 6 0 9 5 8 958 9 5 2 962 962 964 9 6 6 9 6 8 9 5 4 962 962 958 962 954 9 5 0 9/4/2010, FSA, Normal JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Bo un dary Wrigh t Co unty L id ar Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons 2023 30th%70th%Actual Condition Inches above 70%Mar 1.04 1.88 1.79 Normal --Apr 1.71 2.94 3.14 Wet 0.2May2.48 4.38 3.42 Normal --Jun 3.13 5.12 0.74 Dry --Jul 2.48 4.21 2.71 Normal --Aug 2.84 4.47 3.38 Normal --Sep 2.02 4.03 4.16 Wet 0.13Oct1.12 2.75 4.25 Wet 1.5 No Wetland Signatures Found 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: Wright township number: 121N township name: Monticello (west)range number: 25W nearest community: Monticello section number: 23 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 Score using 1991-2020 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: August 2010 second prior month: July 2010 third prior month: June 2010 estimated precipitation total for this location:4.17 3.31 7.72 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.31 2.62 3.33 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.99 4.62 4.58 type of month: dry normal wet normal normal wet monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)13 (Normal) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 6/10/2016, Google Eart h, Normal JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Bo un dary Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons No Wetland Signatures Found 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: Wright township number: 121N township name: Monticello (west)range number: 25W nearest community: Monticello section number: 23 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Score using 1991-2020 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: May 2016 second prior month: April 2016 third prior month: March 2016 estimated precipitation total for this location:3.78 2.84 1.81 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:2.54 1.86 1.13 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:5.28 3.33 1.87 type of month: dry normal wet normal normal normal monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)12 (Normal) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 11 22 33 11 22 33 5/14/2018, Google Eart h, Normal JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Bo un dary Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons No Wetland Signatures Found 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: Wright township number: 121N township name: Monticello (west)range number: 25W nearest community: Monticello section number: 23 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Monday, May 14, 2018 Score using 1991-2020 normal period values are in inches A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar-based estimates. first prior month: April 2018 second prior month: March 2018 third prior month: February 2018 estimated precipitation total for this location:1.88 1.52 1.24 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:1.86 1.13 0.54 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:3.33 1.87 1.25 type of month: dry normal wet normal normal normal monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)12 (Normal) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) 960 962 9 6 4 966 9 5 8 968 95 6 954 95 2950 94 8946 944 942 9 5 6 964 946 9 6 4 962 952 9 6 8 956 958 960 960 958 964 968 960 964 9 4 8 9 6 6 9 5 4 960 962 95 2 958 962 9 4 8 95 6 968 956 962 960 956 962 9 6 8 960 946948 954 956 944 960 950 962 95 4 952 958 9 5 8 9 5 0 9 5 0 950 960 96 2 962 962 960 9 6 0 9 5 8 958 9 5 2 962 962 964 9 6 6 9 6 8 9 5 4 962 962 958 962 954 9 5 0 7/30/2019, FSA, N ormal JP Brooks - Edmonson Ave (KES 2024-151)Monticello, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicatedon this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. ¯0 500 Feet Legend Site Bo un dary Wrigh t Co unty L id ar Source: MNGEO Spatial C ommons 2023 30th%70th%Actual Condition Inches above 70%Mar 1.04 1.88 1.79 Normal --Apr 1.71 2.94 3.14 Wet 0.2May2.48 4.38 3.42 Normal --Jun 3.13 5.12 0.74 Dry --Jul 2.48 4.21 2.71 Normal --Aug 2.84 4.47 3.38 Normal --Sep 2.02 4.03 4.16 Wet 0.13Oct1.12 2.75 4.25 Wet 1.5 No Wetland Signatures Found 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: Wright township number: 121N township name: Monticello (west)range number: 25W nearest community: Monticello section number: 23 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Thursday, August 1, 2019 Score using 1991-2020 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 2019 second prior month: June 2019 third prior month: May 2019 estimated precipitation total for this location:4.61 3.85 6.58 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:2.62 3.33 2.54 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.62 4.58 5.28 type of month: dry normal wet normal normal wet monthly score 3 * 2 = 6 2 * 2 = 4 1 * 3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet)13 (Normal) Other Resources: retrieve daily precipitation data view radar-based precipitation estimates view weekly precipitation maps Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) DRAFT Memorandum www.srfconsulting.com 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 | Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 | 763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364 An Equal Opportunity Employer SRF No. 18533 To: Lucinda Spanier, Entitlements Manager JPB Land LLC From: Brent Clark, PE, Project Manager Ashley Sherry, PE, Engineer III Date: November 26, 2024 Subject: Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study; Monticello, Minnesota Introduction SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed Meadowbrook residential development in the City of Monticello, Minnesota. The proposed development is generally located east of Edmonson Avenue NE, between 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of the study are to evaluate existing operations within the study area, identify any transportation impacts associated with the proposed development, and recommend improvements to address any issues, if necessary. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and study recommendations offered for consideration. Previous Studies The Haven Ridge Development Traffic Study was developed by WSB in June 2024 (hereon referred to as the Haven Ridge Study) and evaluated the Haven Ridge residential development, which is located directly south of the proposed Meadowbrook development. Originally completed in August 2018, the study was recently updated to reflect the removal of approximately 60 single-family units, resulting in a decrease in the number of trips associated with the development. The current Haven Ridge development consists of a total of 298 residential units, which includes 226-units of single-family housing and 72-units of townhomes. The most recent Haven Ridge Study utilized traffic data from the previous study at six (6) study intersections, evaluated year 2030 traffic operations, and recommended various infrastructure improvements. The Haven Ridge development is expected to be completed by 2030, therefore, information from the Haven Ridge Study was leveraged to aide in the development of this study. 02418533 November 2024 Project Location Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 1 Haven Ridge Second Addition Development Haven Ridge Development Project Location School Boulevard 85th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e N E 87th Street NE 25 94 NORTHNo r t h Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 3 Existing Conditions Existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline to identify any future impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes a review of traffic volumes, roadway characteristics, and an intersection capacity analysis, which are summarized in the following sections. Data Collection Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak period vehicular turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts were collected at the following study intersections on Wednesday, October 9, 2024, while area schools were in session: · Edmonson Avenue NE and 89th Street NE · Edmonson Avenue NE and 87th Street NE · Edmonson Avenue NE and 85th Street NE Roadway Characteristics A field assessment was completed to identify various roadway characteristics within the transportation system study area, such as functional classification, general configuration, and posted speed limit. A summary of these roadway characteristics is shown in Table 1. Note that these are general characteristics and that there are some deviations within the area or segments of the roadways. Table 1. Existing Roadway Characteristics (1) Functional Classification based on the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. (2) Roadway has an unposted speed limit. Speed limit was assumed to be 30-mph. (3) Roadway has an unposted speed limit. Speed limit was assumed to be 45-mph. From a traffic control perspective, all study intersections are unsignalized with side-street stop control. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and traffic volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 2. Roadway Functional Classification (1) General Configuration Posted Speed Limit (mph) Edmonson Avenue NE Major Collector 2-lane undivided 45 89th Street NE Local Roadway 2-lane undivided 30 87th Street NE Local Roadway 2-lane undivided 30 (2) 85th Street NE Local Roadway 2-lane undivided 45 (3) 02418533 November 2024 Existing Conditions Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 2 Haven Ridge Second Addition Development Haven Ridge Development Project Location School Boulevard 85th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e N E 87th Street NE 25 XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Side-Street Stop Control LEGEND ( 1 2 ) 2 (1 2 1 ) 9 3 (1 7 ) 9 11 ( 1 8 ) 72 ( 9 5 ) 2 ( 8 ) 85th Street NE (8) 12 (37) 43 (4) 9 6 (7) 27 (38) 19 (21) Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e ( 6 ) 0 (1 3 0 ) 1 11 14 ( 2 3 ) 84 ( 1 2 0 ) 87th Street NE (27) 27 (1) 1 Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e NORTHNo r t h ( 7 ) 3 (1 5 0 ) 1 3 5 16 ( 5 3 ) 95 ( 1 4 0 ) 89th Street NE (30) 52 (3) 3 Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 5 Intersection Capacity Analysis An intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software to establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are graded from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 2. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable based on MnDOT guidelines. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 For side-street stop-controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side- street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high-levels of delay (i.e., poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing capacity analysis, shown in Table 3, indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing traffic control and geometric layout. No significant side-street stop delay or queuing issues were observed. Table 3. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Edmonson Avenue NE and 89th Street NE (1) A/A 5 sec. A/A 5 sec. Edmonson Avenue NE and 87th Street NE (1) A/A 5 sec. A/A 5 sec. Edmonson Avenue NE and 85th Street NE (1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 7 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst side-street approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 6 Proposed Development As mentioned previously, the proposed development is generally located east of Edmonson Avenue NE, between 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE. The proposed development consists of a total of 182 residential units, which include 109-units of single-family housing and 73-units of townhomes. A preliminary site plan for the proposed development is illustrated in Figure 3, which was used as the basis for the traffic analysis. The development is anticipated to be fully constructed and operational by the year 2030. Access to the development is proposed on the east legs of the 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE intersections along Edmonson Avenue NE. In addition, the proposed development is expected to include neighborhood connections to Country Avenue to the north and 87th Street NE to the east. Year 2030 Build Conditions To identify the impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts for year 2030 build conditions were developed. The year 2030 build conditions take into account the planned adjacent development (i.e. Haven Ridge development), general background growth, and traffic generated by the proposed development. The following sections provide detail on the proposed development trip generation, intersection capacity analysis, and potential improvement considerations. Background Traffic Growth To account for general background growth in the area, a growth rate of two (2) percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2030 background forecasts. This growth rate was developed using a combination of historical average daily traffic (ADT) volumes from surrounding roadways published by MnDOT, traffic forecasts from both the City of Monticello and Wright County Comprehensive Plans, and engineering judgment. It should be noted that this growth rate is generally consistent with the growth assumptions as part of the Haven Ridge Study. Adjacent Developments (Haven Ridge) As previously noted, the Haven Ridge development is located in the southeast quadrant of the Edmonson Avenue NE and 85th Street NE intersection, which is directly south of the proposed Meadowbrook development. The development impacts were evaluated as part of the Haven Ridge Study, which was originally completed in 2018 and updated in June 2024. Since completion of the study, construction has begun for the second addition which is located east of the proposed development. The current Haven Ridge development consists of a total of 298 residential units, which includes 226-units of single-family housing and 72-units of townhomes. Therefore, to account for the most updated land use plans, site trips were utilized from the latest Haven Ridge Study, and distributed to the adjacent roadway network. It should be noted that the development is expected to be completed by 2030, therefore, was included in the 2030 build analysis. The adjacent development is expected to account for approximately 112 a.m. and 146 p.m. peak hour trips along Edmonson Avenue NE, near the proposed access locations. 02418533 November 2024 Site Plan Figure 3Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study City of Monticello Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 8 Proposed Development Trip Generation To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, trip generation estimates for the proposed land uses were developed for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a daily basis. The estimates, shown in Table 4, were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Table 4. Proposed Development Trip Generation Estimate Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Trips In Out In Out Single-Family Attached Housing (215) 73 DU 9 26 25 17 526 Single-Family Detached Housing (210) 109 DU 19 57 65 37 1,028 Total Site Trips 28 83 90 54 1,554 Results of the trip generation estimate indicate that the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 111 a.m. peak hour, 144 p.m. peak hour, and 1,554 daily trips. The trips generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 4, which was developed based on existing travel patterns and engineering judgement. The resultant year 2030 build traffic forecasts, which include general area background growth, adjacent development trips (i.e. Haven Ridge), and traffic generated by the proposed development are shown in Figure 5. Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine how the study intersections will accommodate the year 2030 build traffic forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic. Results of the analysis, which is summarized in Table 5, indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at an overall LOS A during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. No side-street stop delay or queuing issues are expected. Table 5. 2030 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Edmonson Avenue NE and 89th Street NE (1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 7 sec. Edmonson Avenue NE and 87th Street NE (1) A/A 6 sec. A/A 6 sec. Edmonson Avenue NE and 85th Street NE (1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 10 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst side-street approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. 02418533 November 2024 Directional Distribution Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 4 To/From East/Northeast 85th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e N E 87th Street NE 25 87th Street NE Co u n t y Ave n u e NORTHNo r t h 5% 5% 40 % 15% Haven Ridge Development Haven Ridge Second Addition Development School Boulevard35% 02418533 November 2024 Year 2030 Build Conditions Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 5 Haven Ridge Second Addition Development Haven Ridge Development School Boulevard 85th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e N E 87th Street NE 25 XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Side-Street Stop Control LEGEND ( 2 0 ) 5 (1 5 5 ) 1 3 0 (2 5 ) 1 5 20 ( 2 5 ) 95 ( 1 4 0 ) 25 ( 7 5 ) 85th Street NE (15) 15 (50) 55 (10) 15 70 (50) 40 (50) 30 (30) Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e ( 1 0 ) 0 (2 0 5 ) 2 1 0 (1 0 ) 5 20 ( 3 0 ) 13 0 ( 2 3 0 ) 10 ( 3 0 ) 87th Street NE (30) 30 (0) 0 (5) 5 Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e NORTHNo r t h 89th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e 25 (20) 0 (0) 10 (5) ( 1 0 ) 5 (2 4 0 ) 2 6 0 (5 ) 5 20 ( 6 0 ) 14 5 ( 2 8 0 ) 15 ( 4 5 ) (35) 60 (0) 0 (5) 5 40 (30) 0 (0) 5 (5) Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 11 Based on the year 2030 build conditions operations analysis, no geometric or traffic control changes are needed to accommodate the proposed development from an operations perspective. However, given Edmonson Avenue NE is a high-speed (45-mph) roadway, turn lanes could be considered at the access locations from a safety perspective. Therefore, the following two (2) improvement options are provided for consideration to improve safety at the study intersections: o Option 1: The City of Monticello’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes the reconstruction of Edmonson Avenue NE, between Chelsea Avenue and School Boulevard, as part of the Pointes at Cedar project. The reconstruction project, scheduled for 2029, is expected to reconfigure this section of Edmonson Avenue NE from a two-lane undivided roadway to a three-lane urban configuration with a two-way left-turn lane. Given the surrounding land use (i.e. residential, schools, and parks) of the development area, consider extending the three-lane section from School Boulevard to 85th Street NE. This extension would help lower speeds along Edmonson Avenue NE, providing the ability to improve pedestrian safety, crossings, and connectivity, while complementing the surrounding developing area. o Option 2: Consider reconfiguring the existing bypass lanes at the 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE intersections to provide left-turn lanes for both northbound and southbound approaches (see Figure 6). Given that a large portion of development traffic is expected to travel to/from the north, southbound left-turn lanes would be beneficial from a safety perspective and would be considered warranted based on AASHTO guidance. While northbound right-turn lanes could also be considered at the access locations, in addition to the two options provided, traffic to/from the south is expected to be minimal. As a result, such lanes would not be warranted based on Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) guidelines. Neighborhood Connections As mentioned previously, the proposed development is expected to include roadway connections to Country Avenue to the north and 87th Street NE to the east. Depending on users’ origins and destinations, some users of the proposed development are expected to utilize these neighborhood connections. As shown in the inset, approximately 85 and 90 new daily trips are expected to route to/from Country Avenue and 87th Street NE, respectively. Note these volumes are expected to be minimal, with between five (5) and 10 vehicles during peak hours (i.e. one (1) car every six (6) to 12 minutes), and no issues are expected. 02418533 November 2024 Improvement Considerations - Option 2 Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 6 89t h S t r e e t N E 87th Street NE - Existing Geometry - Proposed Geometry LEGEND NORTHNo r t h Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 13 Site Plan Review A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to internal roadways, access, traffic controls, sight distance, circulation, and multimodal facilities. The following information should be considered when designing internal traffic controls and access roadways: Incorporate traffic controls, signing, and stripping based on guidelines establish in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Special consideration should be made to limit any sight distance impacts from future structures, landscaping, and signing. In general, all roadways within the proposed development are expected to function adequately as two- lane facilities. Internal intersections are also expected to operate adequately with side-street stop control. As development occurs, internal intersections should be reviewed to determine if a higher level of traffic control (i.e. an all-way stop) should be considered. Summary and Conclusion SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed residential development in the City of Monticello, Minnesota. The proposed development is generally located east of Edmonson Avenue NE, between 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE. Key findings of the traffic study are summarized below: 1) Existing Conditions: a. All study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during peak hours, and no operational or queuing issues were observed. 2) Traffic Forecasts: a. Proposed Development: The proposed development consists of a total of 182 residential units, which includes 109-units of single-family housing and 73-units of townhomes. Access to the development will be provided at the 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE intersections along Edmonson Avenue NE, as well as through neighborhood connections to Country Avenue to the north and 87th Street NE to the east. The development is expected to generate 111 a.m. peak hour trips, 144 p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,554 daily trips. b. Background Growth: A growth rate of two (2) percent was applied to existing peak hour traffic volumes to account for background traffic increases, based on historical data and traffic forecasts from the City and County comprehensive plans. c. Adjacent Development: The Haven Ridge development, located south of the proposed development, is expected to be completed by 2030. Therefore, the updated Haven Ridge site trips were included in the analysis, which forecasts 112 a.m. peak Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 14 hour trips and 146 p.m. peak hour trips along Edmonson Avenue NE, near the proposed access locations. 3) Future Operations: a. Year 2030 Build Conditions: The study area transportation network is expected to adequately support both the proposed and adjacent developments under 2030 conditions. No queueing or delay issues are expected at the study intersections. b. Improvement Considerations: Although no operational issues are expected, two (2) improvement considerations were provided from a safety perspective: i. Option 1: Extend the planned three-lane configuration of Edmonson Avenue NE, currently set to span from Chelsea Avenue to School Boulevard, further south to 85th Street NE. This extension could help reduce speeds and improve pedestrian safety, crossings, and connectivity. ii. Option 2: Reconfigure the existing bypass lanes at the 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE intersections to include left-turn lanes for both northbound and southbound approaches. This improvement would enhance safety, particularly for southbound traffic, given most users from the development are destined to/from the north. c. Neighborhood Connections: The proposed development will include roadway connections to Country Avenue and 87th Street NE, with an estimated 85 to 90 new daily trips using these routes. These volumes are expected to be minimal, with only 5 to 10 vehicles during peak hours (about one car every 6 to 12 minutes), and no issues are expected. 4) Site Plan Review: a. A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to internal roadways, access, traffic controls, and circulation. 1 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS (MEADOWBROOK) This Declaration is made on _____________________ _____, 202___, by JPB LAND LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Declarant”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain real property located in Monticello, Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and referred to herein as the “Property”; WHEREAS, Declarant has developed the Property (the “Development”) with subdivision improvements for _______________________________ (______) single family residential home lots (each individually is a “Lot” and more than one are “Lots”) shown on the Plat of Meadowbrook, Wright County, Minnesota, together with any amendments or supplements thereto recorded from time to time (the “Plat”); WHEREAS, Declarant has elected not to have the Development be treated as a common interest community under Minn. Stat. Chap. 515B, and the Development falls within the exemption set forth in Minn. Stat. Sec. 515B.1-102(e)(2); WHEREAS, Declarant desires to establish uniform and continuing covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations and easements for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future owners thereof; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject all of the Property to this Declaration. DECLARATION NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the Property shall be subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, positive easements, and negative easements, which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of said land and which shall run with the land and be binding upon all parties having any righ t, title or interest in said land or any part thereof, and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each owner thereof. SECTION 1 DESCRIPTION OF LOTS, BOUNDARIES AND RELATED EASEMENTS 1.1 Lot Description. There are one hundred twenty (120) Lots. All Lots are restricted exclusively to single-family residential use. Each Lot constitutes a separate parcel of real estate. No additional Lots may be created by the subdivision or conversion of any Lot or Lots. The Lot identifiers and locations of the Lots are as shown on the Plat, which is 2 incorporated herein by reference. The Lot identifier for each Lot shall be its lot and block numbers and the subdivision name. 1.2 Recorded Plat. The Plat establishes certain restrictions applicable to the Property. All dedications, restrictions and reservations created herein or shown on the Plat shall be construed as being included in each contract, deed, or conveyance executed or to be executed by or on behalf of Declarant, conveying said Property or any part thereof whether specifically referred to therein or not. 1.3 Utility/Drainage Easements. Declarant has created public utility and drainage easements shown on the Plat for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and repairing a system or systems of electric lighting, electric power, fiber optic cable, telephone lines, gas lines, sewer lines, water lines, if any, storm drainage (surface or underground), cable television, or any other utility the Declarant sees fit to install in, across and/or under the Property. Owners of adjoining Lots shall have reciprocal easements for reasonable access over adjoining Lots for the maintenance and upkeep of retaining walls, fences, landscaping, grass and other improvements; provided that any damage to an adjoining Lot resulting from such access shall be promptly and fully repaired. Declarant and its assigns further expressly reserves the right to enter upon any Lot for the purpose of improving, constructing, maintaining or redirecting any natural drainage pattern, drainage swales, area or easement. All utility and drainage easements in the Property may be used for the construction of drainage swales in order to provide for improved surface drainage of the Lots. Declarant shall not be liable for any damages done by any utility company, water district, political subdivision or other authorized user of such easements or their assigns, agents, employees, or servants, to fences, shrubbery, trees and lawns or any other property of the Owner on the property covered by said easements. For purposes of this Declaration, the term “Owner” shall mean the record owner, whether one or more Person, of the fee simple title to any Lot except that, where a Lot is being sold on a contract for deed and the contract vendee is in possession of the Lot, then the vendee and not the vendor shall be deemed to be the Owner. For purposes of this Declaration, the term “Person” shall mean a natural individual, corporation, limited liability company partnership, trustee, or other legal entity capable of holding title to real property. 1.4 Title Subject to Easements. The Property shall be subject to such other easements as may be recorded against it or otherwise shown on the Plat. The owners of the respective Lots shall not be deemed to own pipes, wires, conduits or other service lines running through their Lots which are utilized for or service other Lots, but each owner shall have an easement in and to the aforesaid facilities as shall be necessary for the use, maintenance and enjoyment of the Owner's Lot. 1.5 Impairment Prohibited. No Person shall materially restrict or impair any easement benefiting or burdening the Property, subject to this Declaration. 3 SECTION 2 ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEES The holder of any mortgage of record against any Lot, upon written request given by the holder of such mortgage to the other Owners advising the other Owners of such mortgage interest and its mailing address, shall be given written notice by the other Owners of all defaults of the Owner of the Lot upon which such mortgage is a lien, then or thereafter existing, in fulfilling his/her obligations under this Declaration; but the defaults set out in such notice shall not be conclusive on the other Owners, and the other Owners shall have the right to enforce all claims against such Owner for all defaults of such Owner whether or not notice thereof is given to the holder of such mortgage. SECTION 3 RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF PROPERTY All Owners and Occupants (for purposes of this Declaration, the term “Occupant” shall mean any Person or Persons, other than an Owner, in possession of or residing in a Lot.), and all secured parties, by their acceptance or assertion of an interest in the Property, or by their occupancy of a Lot, covenant and agree that, in addition to any other restrictions which may be imposed by this Declaration, the occupancy, use, operation, alienation and conveyance of the Property shall be subject to the following restrictions: 3.1 Residential Use. No Lot shall be used for anything but Residential Purposes, except that Declarant and its successors and assigns shall be entitled to maintain model homes and other sales facilities upon the Lots. For purposes of this Declaration, the term “Residential Purpose” shall mean that the Lot is used exclusively for single-family residential occupancy only; provided, however, an Owner may maintain: (i) a home office within a Dwelling provided there is no advertising signs or regular visits by customers or clients; or (ii) an in-home daycare in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. For purposes of this Declaration, the term “Dwelling” shall mean a building consisting of one or more floors, designed and intended for occupancy as a single family residence, and located within the boundaries of a Lot, and the Dwelling includes any attached or detached garage structure within the Lot. 3.2 Use of Temporary Structures. No structure of a temporary character, whether trailer, basement, tent, shack, shed, garage, barn or other outbuilding of a temporary character shall be maintained or used on any Lot at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. Notwithstanding the foregoing a motorhome, camper, trailer and/or tent may be used on a Lot for short-term, occasional use (no longer than five (5) consecutive days) and no more than fifteen (15) total days of using one or more of such items per calendar year on any Lot. 3.3 Prohibition of Offensive Activities. All Owners and Occupants and their guests shall have a right of quiet enjoyment of their respective Lots, and shall use the Property in such a manner as will not cause a nuisance, nor unduly restrict, interfere with or impede the use of the Property, or any other Lot, by other Owners and Occupants and their guests. 4 No obnoxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which is or may become a violation of applicable statutes, ordinances or regulations imposed by any applicable governmental authority or an annoyance or nuisance to any Owner or Occupant of any Lot. 3.4 Garbage, Trash Disposal and Recycling. All Owners must contract with a garbage and trash disposal company for the removal of trash and recycling. Garbage and trash or other refuse accumulated on the Property shall not be permitted to be dumped at any place upon adjoining land or any Lot where a nuisance to any residence of the Property is or may be created. No part of the Property may be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish or landfill. Trash, garbage or other waste shall not be allowed to accumulate, shall be kept in sanitary containers and shall be disposed of regularly. No trash, garbage or other waste shall be burned on the Property. All equipment for the storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition, within the garage or other enclosed structure. Waste receptacles must be removed from the curbside within twenty-four (24) hours of having been placed out for collection. Notwithstanding the forgoing, Declarant and its subcontractors may maintain trash dumpsters on a Lot during construction of the initial Dwelling on a Lot. 3.5 Inoperable Motor Vehicles Prohibited. No inoperable vehicle shall be stored on any Lot, except within an enclosed garage or other approved structure on the Lot. No accessories, parts or objects used with cars, boats, buses, trucks, motor homes, trailers, house trailers, campers, or the like, shall be kept on any Lot other than in a garage or other enclosed structure. 3.6 Vehicles and Recreational Vehicles. Passenger automobiles, passenger vans, motorcycles and pick-up trucks that are in operating condition, have current license plates and inspection stickers, and are in regular legal use as motor vehicles on public streets and highways may be parked on a home’s driveway. Trailers, boats, buses, motor homes, campers, snowmobiles, fish houses, ATV’s, or other types of recreational vehicles may be parked on the home’s driveway or on the side of the garage as long as they are in good, operating condition. 3.7 Signs. No signs, advertisement, billboard or advertising structure of any kind, except a “For Sale” sign not to exceed five (5) square feet in size, may be erected or maintained on any Lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Declarant shall have the right to erect and maintain such sign as it deems necessary to advertise the development during construction and sale periods. 3.8 Livestock and Animals. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot if they are kept, bred or maintained for commercial purposes or they become a nuisance or threat to other Owners. All animals kept at a Lot must be kept in compliance with all applicable laws. No such animals shall be allowed to run loose on a Lot, unless contained within such Lot by an “invisible fence” type fence or other fence. No outdoor kennel(s), doghouse or other outdoor pet enclosure(s) may be located on any of the Lots. A maximum of two (2) dogs and two (2) cats may be kept at any Lot. 5 3.9 Drainage/Utilities. Any platted drainage and utility easements shown on the Plat or natural drainage patterns of streets, Lots or roadway ditches shall not be impaired by any Person or Persons. The easement and drainage areas on each Lot and all improvements thereon shall be maintained by the Owner, except to the extent maintained by the city or utility company. 3.10 Hazardous Substances. Except for common household cleaners and supplies, no Hazardous Substance shall be brought onto, installed, used, stored, treated, buried, disposed of or transported over the Lots. All activities on the Lots involving Hazardous Substances shall, at all times, comply with applicable law. 3.11 Holiday Decorations/Lighting. Seasonal/holiday lights and decorations shall be permitted on the Lots, provided that they are installed/placed and removed (i) for the winter holiday season (i.e. Christmas, Hanukah, etc.) no earlier than November 1 and no later than March 31, respectively, and (ii) for all other holiday seasons within 15 days of the relevant holiday/season. 3.12 Fences. No fences shall be allowed on the Lots, except for (i) a four (4) foot high white vinyl, black aluminum or black chain link fence or (ii) an “invisible fence”. Any such fence must be installed in accordance with City of Monticello code. 3.13 Antennae. No exterior television, radio, satellite or microwave or broadcasting antenna of any sort shall be erected or maintained upon any Lot which is readily visible from ground level on the public roadway in front of the Lot on which it is located. The following are not permitted in Meadowbrook: exterior antennae used for amateur radio, CB radio, FM or AM radio, or satellite radio. The following are permitted: • Dish antenna one meter or less in diameter designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service or to receive and transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite. • Antenna/Dish one meter in diameter or less designed to receive wireless cable or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than by satellite. • Commercially available analog and digital television antennae. A resident may install no more than one antenna or dish for each type of service. • Dishes shall be no more than one meter or 39 inches in size. • Dishes shall be installed only on the roof of the Dwelling. Dishes shall not be installed on the lawn or trees, or on the siding, trim, fascia, windows, patios or deck of any Dwelling. 6 • Dishes shall be placed below the ridge vent on the back side or rear of the Dwelling and shall not be visible from front street side of the Lot and must not be visible from the front of the building. • No excess cable wire shall be used or wound on the exterior of any Dwelling and must be securely fastened. No coax cable may be left on the ground. • Cable runs must be as short as possible with only one entry point into the Dwelling, ideally through an attic ridge vent. The cable must be colored to match the roof color. • Antennae or dishes no longer in service must be removed, together with all related wiring and hardware, within 30 days following discontinuation of service. • Owners must provide a copy of these guidelines to the installer and, if the satellite dish is not properly installed, other Owners shall have the right to request the removal of the satellite dish at any time. 3.14 Mailboxes. All mailboxes in the Development shall be CBU (cluster) mailboxes. Declarant shall be responsible for initial installation of all mailboxes in the Development. Any replacements or modifications of such mailboxes are at each Owner’s expense. 3.15 Auxiliary Buildings. Except for a storage shed (not to exceed 160 square feet) placed in the back yard of a Lot, no shed/storage/accessory building, including but not limited to solar heat gathering systems and/or woodfired heating systems, may be located on any Lot. No auxiliary building shall be constructed on any Lot prior to construction of the Dwelling thereon. Any such permitted storage shed must be placed on the Lot so that it does not (i) block or hinder stormwater drainage or (ii) interfere with utility lines, and must (x) match colors with the Dwelling and (y) meet all applicable city code requirements. 3.16 Driveways. All driveways and sidewalks within a Lot shall be paved with hard surfaces (asphalt and/or concrete). 3.17 Exterior Materials/Colors. Exterior materials on Dwellings must be consistent with or better than original construction materials. Painted materials must be consistent with the original construction colors/concepts within the Development (e.g. no outlandish colors or paint schemes). No murals or paintings may be placed on garage doors or any other part of the Dwelling. No Person may modify or change the appearance of the exterior of any Dwelling, except in accordance with the requirements set forth in this Declaration. 3.18 Irrigation Systems. Each Lot shall have an inground irrigation system installed and properly operating, and such system shall be regularly operated during each year during the months of June through September. 7 3.19 Leasing. No Lot or Dwelling located thereon shall be rented or leased for occupancy for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive days in duration. No short-term, including but not limited to VRBO and AirBNB style, rentals shall be allowed within the Development. Any permitted leasing shall be pursuant to a written Lease, that subjects the Lot and tenant(s)/occupant(s) under the Lease to the terms of this Declaration. SECTION 4 COMPLIANCE AND REMEDIES Each Owner and Occupant, and any other Person owning or acquiring any interest in the Property, shall be governed by and comply with the provisions of this Declaration, and such amendments thereto as may be made from time to time. A failure to comply shall entitle the other Owner(s) to the relief set forth in this Section, in addition to the rights and remedies authorized elsewhere by this Declaration. 4.1 Entitlement to Relief. Any Owner(s) may commence legal action against another Owner(s) to recover damages or injunctive relief, or any combination thereof, or an action for any other relief authorized by this Declaration or available at law or in equity to enforce compliance with this Declaration. 4.2 Cumulative Remedies. All remedies shall be cumulative, and the exercise of, or failure to exercise, any remedy shall not be deemed a waiver of the other Owners’ right to pursue any others. 4.3 Costs of Proceeding and Attorneys’ Fees. With respect to any action, legal, administrative, or otherwise, which any Owner(s) take to enforce the provisions of this Declaration, whether or not finally determined by a court or arbitrator, such Owner(s) shall be entitled to reimbursement from the violator for any expenses incurred in connection with such enforcement, including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees, and interest (at the highest rate allowed by law) thereon until paid in full . 4.4 Effect of Nonpayment; Remedies of Other Owners. In addition, if any such amount is not paid within fifteen (15) days after its due date, the other Owner(s) enforcing this Declaration shall have a continuing lien against the violating Lot(s), and may foreclose such lien by action or advertisement in the same manner as a real estate mortgage may be foreclosed. The enforcing Owner(s) shall have the power of sale in connection with a foreclosure by advertisement. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for such costs by rental, non-use or abandonment of the Owner’s Lot. 4.5 Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages. The lien for such amounts provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage. While the transfer of any Lot generally does not affect such lien, the foreclosure of any such mortgage or any proceeding in lieu thereof or deed in lieu of foreclosure, shall extinguish the lien of such lien as to payments which became due prior to such foreclosure or proceeding in lieu thereof or which become due during any period of redemption and, if such liens were extinguished and cannot be collected in an action against the Person personally obligated 8 to pay them, the other Owner(s) bringing such action shall bear such amounts equally. No sale or transfer shall relieve such Lot from liability for any such amount thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. SECTION 5 TERM AND AMENDMENTS 5.1 Term. The provisions of this Declaration shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon all Owners and all persons claiming under them for a period of thirty (30) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time said Declaration as amended pursuant to Section 5.2 below, shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each, unless the Owners elect to terminate the common interest community created by this Declaration pursuant to applicable law. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, any easements created hereby shall continue in perpetuity in accordance with the respective terms thereof. 5.2 Amendments. This Declaration may be amended by the consent of: (i) Owners of Lots to which are allocated at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the votes of the Owners; and (ii) the consent of Declarant to certain amendments as provided in Section 6.2 below. Consent of the Owners, and the Declarant shall each be in writing. Any amendments shall be subject to any greater requirements imposed by applicable law. SECTION 6 SPECIAL DECLARANT RIGHTS 6.1 Control of Development. Declarant shall have the right to control the operation and administration of the Development until the date the last Lot is sold by Declarant. 6.2 Consent to Certain Amendments. As long as Declarant owns any unsold Lot for sale, Declarant’s written consent shall be required for any amendment to this Declaration which directly or indirectly affect or may affect Declarant’s rights under this Declaration. SECTION 7 MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 Severability. If any term, covenant, or provision of this instrument or any exhibit attached hereto is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, such determination shall not be deemed to alter, affect or impair in any manner whatsoever any other portion of this Declaration or exhibits attached hereto. 7.2 Construction. Where applicable the masculine gender of any word used herein shall mean the feminine or neutral gender, or vice versa, and the singular of any word used herein shall mean the plural, or vice versa. 9 7.3 Notices. All notices required to be given by or to the Owners or Occupants shall be in writing and shall be effective upon hand delivery, or mailing if properly addressed with postage prepaid and deposited in the United States mail. 7.4 Enforcement. The Declarant or any Owner or any first mortgagee of record, shall have the right to enforce this Declaration by proceedings at law or in equity. Failure by any person or governmental authority to enforce any provision of this Declaration shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 7.5 No Trust. No trust is created by this Declaration. No charitable purpose is served by this Declaration. This Declaration is for the private use and benefit of the Owners and not for any public use, benefit or purpose. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration as of the day and year first above written. DECLARANT: JPB LAND LLC By: (Print Name) Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF_______________ ) This instrument was acknowledged before me _______________ ____, 202___, by ________________________, as _____________________ of JPB Land LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. NOTARY PUBLIC This instrument was drafted by: Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. 8300 Norman Center Drive, Suite 1000 Minneapolis, MN 55437-1060 (TFA) 10 EXHIBIT A The Property’s legal description is as follows: Lots ____-____, Block ____, all within Meadowbrook, Wright County, Minnesota. 4873-3441-5863, v. 1 M:\026477-000\Admin\Docs\2024-12-09 Submittal (Preliminary Plat)\_2024-12-23 Meadowview Residential Subdvision PUD & Prelim Plat - WSB Engineering Review Letter.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 5 5 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M December 23, 2024 Matt Leonard City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Meadowview Residential Subdivision – PUD Prelim Plat & Plan Review City Project No. 2024-37 WSB Project No. 026477-000 Dear Mr. Leonard: We have reviewed the JP Brooks Residential Subdivision PUD preliminary plat and civil site plans dated December 9, 2024. The applicant proposes to construct a 182-unit (109 single-family; 73 Townhome) residential development on a 55-acre parcel. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello’s general engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding these matters. Preliminary Plat (Sheets 4 – 6) & General Comments 1. City staff will provide additional comments under separate cover. 2. Edmonson Avenue right of way width shall be 55’ wide. Complete. 3. Verify the project concept will work with the existing utility easements on the property. Show the locations of existing easements on future submittals. Complete. 4. The plat will require 12’ perimeter drainage and utility easements and 6’ easements in the side-yards. Complete. 5. The outlots around the townhome lots should all be drainage and utility easements. 6. Confirm with the holder of the powerline easement that BMX bike park will be allowable within their easement. 7. With future submittals provide soil borings and full geotechnical evaluation to verify soil conditions, groundwater elevations within the site, and the proposed pavement section meeting City design requirements. 8. Additional comments have been provided directly on the plan sheets. Not all comments on the plans have been summarized in this review letter. Meadowview Residential Subdivision PUD Prelim Plat & Civil Plans – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 23, 2024 Page 2 Existing Site & Demolition Plan (Sheets 2 – 3) 9. With final plat submittal, provide a removals/demolition plan (could add to the existing site plan) to show what trees are proposed to be removed, impacts to adjacent streets, removals of existing utility infrastructure, etc. Site Plan & Streets 10. Streets shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision Ordinances and the City’s General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Street Construction. With final plat submittal provide a separate site/street plans including profile views. Signage and lighting locations can be included on these sheets as well. 11. City design standards require horizontal and vertical curve lengths to meet a 30 MPH design speed for local streets, at minimum. The minimum horizontal curve radius is 300’ and the minimum vertical curve length is 90’. Exceptions can be reviewed on a case-by- case basis for low volume roadways. 12. The plan includes trails, sidewalks, and pedestrian facilities. See additional comments on pedestrian access and mobility requirements provided by City Staff under separate cover. A more detailed review will be provided with future submittals, but initial comments are as follows: a. A 10’ bituminous trail will be required along Edmonson Avenue. Complete. b. Add a 6’ wide concrete sidewalk to the cul-de-sac. c. Connect the 6’ wide sidewalk on 87th to the existing sidewalk to the east. Complete. d. Country Avenue will require a temporary cul-de-sac to the south for the proposed stub street. e. Provide curb bump outs to a road width of 24’ at future trail crossing on Country Avenue. 13. Review all locations where trails and/or sidewalks connect to roadways, all of these locations will require pedestrian curb ramps. 14. The developer will need to confirm the depth of the gasmain and crossing height across existing easement to verify that the proposed roadway elevation will work. 15. With final plat submittal provide the following: a. Profile view of streets that include stationing, curve length, percent grade, and other standard geometric/design information. Add stationing to plan view on all sheets and horizontal curve information on the street design sheets. Use a different set of stationing numbers for each street so that there are not overlapping numbers. b. Signage and lighting locations can be added to the plan/profile sheets. c. Applicable City standard detail plates, see specific notes in section below. Utility Plans (Sheets 9 – 10) 16. Utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision Ordinances and the City’s General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Utility Construction. 17. The Fire Marshall and/or building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency vehicle access/circulation. Fire truck circulation will need to Meadowview Residential Subdivision PUD Prelim Plat & Civil Plans – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 23, 2024 Page 3 accommodate the City’s ladder truck. If the cul-de-sacs are designed to City standards, typically a turning movement detail is not required. Additional comments may be provided under separate cover. 18. Provide a utility plan showing the existing and proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer serving the site: a. Watermain looping may be required through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply. Oversize watermain to 12” in connection from 87th to 89th. Complete. b. Additional utility stubs to adjacent properties may also be required to accommodate future looping connections. Add a watermain stub to the south. Complete. c. The City’s minimum size watermain is 8-inches. d. The watermain to the south stud should be oversized to 12-inches. e. Verify on plans whether PVC or DIP will be used for watermain. f. See additional comments on plan markups. 19. Hydrant locations shall be reviewed and approved of by the City Fire Marshal; typically, a maximum of 250’ overlapping influence radius (maximum 400’ spacing) is required along roadway (hose length). 20. With final construction plans, provide confirmation of MDH (watermain) and MPCA (sanitary sewer) plan review and permitting. The City engineer will need to review and sign the sanitary sewer permit. 21. Any public sanitary sewer and watermain shall be encompassed by drainage and utility easements where located outside of public road right of way. Drainage and utility easements will need to allow for a 1:1 trench from the invert of the utility with a minimum of 20’ centered on the utility. 22. All manholes shall be located along the centerline of the street. To the greatest extent possible, move curb stops to the adjacent green space if possible. If this option is not feasible, the curb stops will require curb stop casting covers. 23. The City is reviewing the sanitary sewer model to determine if the proposed sanitary sewer layout will work with planned capacities. In the current plans, only 17 lots are going to the north stub and 165 lots are going to the east stub. The review will determine if additional lots will need to be directed to the north stub. 24. Add general notes to the utility plans to the effect of: a. The City shall not be responsible for any additional costs incurred that are associated with variations in the utility as-built elevations. All utility connections shall be verified in the field. b. The City, or agents of the City, are not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The Owner and Engineer of Record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City’s standards. c. All watermain and sanitary sewer testing shall be conducted in accordance with the City standards and specifications. Copies of all test results shall be submitted to the City (Public Works Director, City Engineer), the Owner, and the Engineer of Record. d. Watermain shall have a minimum cover of 7.5’. e. Tracer wire installation shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the MN Rural Water Association Standards. See these standards for further details. f. The City will require televising for sanitary and storm sewer pipe installations prior to accepting a warranty for the utility system; provide report and video files to the City for review. Meadowview Residential Subdivision PUD Prelim Plat & Civil Plans – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 23, 2024 Page 4 25. With final plat submittal provide the following: a. Plan/profile sheets for watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer. a. Provide dimension notes from watermain to parallel sewer mains (storm and sanitary sewer); the minimum horizontal separation between mains is 10 feet. Where watermain crosses storm or sanitary sewer, add a note at each location to the effect of “Maintain 18” Minimum Separation, 4” Rigid Insulation” on both the plan view and profile view locations (both utility and storm sewer sheets). b. Show water/sewer service location to each lot and include the curb stop location at utility easement location (10’ beyond ROW). For each lot location add the low floor opening elevation, sewer service station from downstream manhole, sewer service invert elevation at utility easement (10’ beyond ROW), riser height if applicable, and curb stop elevation. Grading & Drainage Plans (Sheets 11 – 12) 26. Storm sewer pipes should be in drainage and utility easements, please verify that pipes are all within easements. 27. With final plat submittal provide the following a. In general maintain all surface grades within the minimum of 2% and maximum 33% slopes. Vegetated swale grades shall also be a minimum of 2.0%. b. Drainage arrows on plans showing direction of runoff. Note specifically high points between each side-yard swale. c. Include percent slope In all other swale locations and verify that it meets the City requirement of 2% minimum. d. Provide proposed driveway grades at each location. e. Add rip-rap quantities and class notes at each flared end section and pond overflows (if applicable). f. Note the size of proposed storm sewer structures. Erosion & Sediment Control Plans (Sheets 13 – 14) 28. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP consistent with the MPCA CSWGP with future plan submittals. 29. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to construction commencing. 30. A detailed review of erosion/sediment control and SWPPP will be conducted with the final plat submittal. Provide SWPPP documents with final plan submittal. Construction Notes & Standard Details Plans 31. With final plat submittal provide details sheets and utilize the City’s Standard Details Plates for Street and Utility Construction. 32. The street section should follow the updated City standard detail with 1 ½” wear course and 3” non-wear pavement (Monticello Only). 33. Provide details for the proposed stormwater treatment areas. Meadowview Residential Subdivision PUD Prelim Plat & Civil Plans – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 23, 2024 Page 5 34. Provide specific details for each of the control structures proposed. 35. A full review of standard details will be conducted with the final plat submittal. Stormwater Management 36. Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site: a. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City’s Design Manual. Complete. b. Infiltration is required for new developments. If infiltration is not feasible provide documentation on the rational before moving to additional BMP’s. It appears the plans show wet stormwater basins. Provide soils report or rational why infiltration is not feasible onsite. Soils report and infiltration test provided. Infiltration tests indicate that infiltration is not feasible in ponds 1 and 2. Infiltration does appear feasible in the proposed infiltration basin. However, the tests were taken at the existing ground. The tests should be taken once the basin is excavated to the proposed ground elevation. It is highly recommended that boring(s) be conducted in the proposed infiltration basin to confirm the soils at the basin bottom are conducive to infiltration. Complete. c. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1” over the new impervious area, Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging to the volume control BMPs. Complete. d. Water quality requirements will be considered met if volume control is achieved for the site. If volume control cannot be met then the development will need to show a no net increase of TSS and TP. Complete. e. Rate control will be required for the new development. All rates must be equal or less than existing rates for each discharge location. Proposed drainage areas P5 and P6 drain offsite. Provide a rate control comparison for each discharge point offsite to confirm that the rate control requirement is met. Complete. f. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and should be submitted with the stormwater report for review. g. The site is within the DWSMA and is subject to requirements of the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan. Complete, the site is not within the DWSMA, no action needed. 37. Two feet of freeboard is required for the HWL of a basin to the low opening of a structure. Two feet of vertical separation is also required from an area’s EOF elevation to the low opening. HWL freeboard requirement met. A minimum of 2-feet of freeboard is required between the low opening and EOF elevation. This requirement is not met for, Lot 3 Blocks 1, 2, and 3, Lot 4 Blocks 1, 2, and 3, all blocks in Lot 5, Lot 6 blocks 1, 2, 9, and 10, Lot 7 Blocks 2, 3, 30, 39 – 43, Lot 8 blocks 14 and 15, Lot 9 Blocks 7 and 8, Lot 10 Blocks 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and Lot 11 Blocks 6, 7, 8, and 9.There are conflicting requirements within the Design Guidelines document, in this case 1.5ft of freeboard between the EOF and low opening of adjacent structures is acceptable. The 1.5ft requirement is not met for Block 4 lots 1 through 3 and Block 6 lot 10. Please see note 44 below for additional EOF considerations. 38. Include storm sewer sizing calculations with future plans. Refer to the City design guidelines for Storm sewer requirements. Will be submitted with final design. a. All flared end sections 12 inches in diameter and greater shall include trash guards per City detail Meadowview Residential Subdivision PUD Prelim Plat & Civil Plans – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 23, 2024 Page 6 b. The minimum full flow velocity within the storm sewer should be three fps. The maximum velocity shall be 10 fps, except when entering a pond, where the maximum velocity shall be limited to six fps. c. Vaned grate (3067V) catch basin castings shall be used on all streets. d. The maximum design flow at a catch basin for the 10-year storm event shall be three cubic feet per second (cfs), unless high capacity grates are provided. Catch basins at low points will be evaluated for higher flow with the approval of the City Engineer. 39. The last structure prior to discharge to a stormwater BMP is required to be a 4’ minimum sump structure. 40. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP consistent with the MPCA CSWGP with future plan submittals. Provide calculations showing disturbed area, proposed impervious, and future impervious for the site. 41. Please provide an electronic version of the HydroCAD model for existing and proposed conditions. Complete. 42. The proposed model indicates that there is an increase in 100-year HWL for the ponds upstream of Meadowbrook, varying from 0.3ft to 0.7ft. The proposed design should be modified to maintain the existing 100-year HWL upstream while maintaining the existing discharge rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events downstream. Complete, see comment 44 for outstanding item. 43. The development is located within a significant regional drainage system. As shown on Figure 4, future development in subcatchments KF-02 and KF-05 will flow north through the proposed site. The proposed development will need to extend drainage infrastructure to maintain conveyance from these offsite areas for both existing conditions and full development. Additionally, the proposed model includes future ponding for KF-02. There currently is no pond in this subwatershed. As noted above, the development must provide conveyance for both existing and future conditions drainage for these offsite areas. Pipe will be added through the exception parcel to route drainage from KF-02 and KF-05. Show on plans. 44. The location of the inlets and outlet from Pond 2 will tend to lead to short circuiting. The location of the inlet from Park Drive to Pond 1 will tend to lead to short circuiting. In process. 45. Clearly indicate maintenance access routes and benches to all BMPs on the plans. Complete. 46. Clearly indicate the elevation of the overflow between Infiltration Basin 2 and pond 2. Runoff should discharge to the infiltration basin prior to discharging downstream for storm events 1.1” and less. Complete. 47. The report indicates that no outlet was found from the pond 204 east of the site. Please confirm if this is accurate. Given the large upstream tributary area, a piped outlet is recommended between pond 204 and infiltration basin 2 or pond 2 to minimize erosion. Modify the outlet in the model as needed. In the 12/11 meeting, it was confirmed with Otto Associates and Ryan Melhouse that there is no outlet for pond 204, and it tends to act as an infiltration basin. The original City-wide model included an outlet from pond 204 at elevation 942.0. With only an overland outlet, the 100-yr HWL of this pond increases Meadowview Residential Subdivision PUD Prelim Plat & Civil Plans – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 23, 2024 Page 7 approximately 1-foot from previous assumptions. After reviewing plans for the neighboring housing developments, it has been determined that a 30” piped outlet must be provided from KF-06 to Meadowbrook Pond 12P to facilitate the final design of the regional system. The pipe should be constructed at an invert of 947.0’ at the upstream pond KF-06. The regional conveyance system always included a piped outlet from this basin. Although it has functioned to date as an infiltration without a piped outlet, there is a large upstream watershed that will continue to develop and a piped outlet is required. Please incorporate the piped outlet into the HydroCAD model and evaluated freeboard requirements. Note that the low properties in Hunters Crossing are at 956.0’. The EOF at County Avenue must provide a minimum of 1.5’ of separation. 48. Add riprap at the proposed aprons. 49. The proposed trail along Edmonson is located in the existing ditch that conveys the road runoff. How will drainage be maintained for the existing road? Complete, storm sewer stubs and a ditch have been added. 50. Recommend incorporating the depression in the rear yards of Lots 8 and 9, Block 11 into the model to confirm adequate freeboard is provided from the depression in Outlot D due to the offsite tributary area. Complete, EOF provided is sufficient, do not need to incorporate Block 11. 51. Where is drainage area P1 routed in the proposed conditions Hydrocad model? P-1 appears to be routed to the existing 36” pipe on the east side of the development. Provide calculations that the pipe has sufficient capacity for the proposed tributary area. IN-progress, will be provided when storm sewer is sized for final plans. 52. As currently shown, the upstream offsite area, approximately 420 acres, is all tributary to infiltration basin 2. It is not recommended to route this much offsite drainage through an infiltration basin as it is likely that infiltration will fail. Complete, addressed in 12/11 meeting, it is acceptable to let upstream area drain to infiltration basin 2. Traffic & Access 53. The applicant is proposing five access points, one extending Country Avenue to the south, one extending 87th Street to the west, one extending Park Drive to the west, and two becoming the east legs of existing intersections along Edmonson Avenue (at 87th Street and 89th Street). Verify that offset intersections are not being proposed along Edmonson Avenue at 87th Street and 89th Street. Complete. 54. Street access spacing is based on existing 87th Avenue and 89th Avenue intersections on Edmonson Avenue. Verify lane configurations on Edmonson Avenue at these intersections based on traffic study results. Complete. 55. Include sight distance exhibits for new access locations on Edmonson Avenue at 87th Street and 89th Street to ensure landscaping does not impact sightlines. 56. The site would generate approximately 1,424 daily trips, 106 AM peak hour trips and 143 PM peak hour trips. The existing Average Daily Traffic on Edmonson Avenue for 2023 is drafted to be near 3,400 and is 6,200 on School Boulevard west of Edmonson Avenue. The addition of the proposed traffic is expected to have an impact on roadway capacity and operations. Traffic study is complete. Meadowview Residential Subdivision PUD Prelim Plat & Civil Plans – WSB Engineering Plan Review December 23, 2024 Page 8 57. Provide a traffic study for this development including impacted intersections, turn lane recommendations, and traffic control mitigation measures if needed. A draft traffic study has been completed by SRF. See PDF for comments. 58. Include any signing and pavement marking modifications required on Edmonson Avenue based on new access locations. Traffic study and plans indicate left-turn lanes on Edmonson Avenue will be provided, show modified signing and striping. Wetlands & Environmental 59. A complete application for wetland delineation was submitted to the LGU for review and approval on October 21, 2024. The comment period for the delineation ends on November 13, 2021. The TEP reviewed the delineation on site on October 28, 2024 and agreed that no wetlands were present on the site. A Notice of Decision will be issued after the comment period is complete. Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Feel free to contact me at 612-419-1549 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering review. Sincerely, WSB James L. Stremel, P.E. Senior Project Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 22 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151613121110 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 3 2 1 7 1 20 19 18 17 161514 12 13 10 11 9 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 67 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 6 789101112 3 OUTLOT B 6 5 4 9 8 6 5 234 1234567891011121234 1234 123 654 123 654 123 1 23 4 8 76 5 12 3 65 4 5 1 234 8765 12 34 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 8 76 111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 OUTLOT D OUTLOT D OU T L O T D 23 EDMONSON AVENUE NE 87 T H S T . N E P R O P O S E D R O A D COUNTRY AVE 89 T H S T R E E T N E P A R K DR I V E PRIVATE PR I V A T E R O A D PRIVATE ROAD ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com 12-9-24 PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN MEADOWBROOK JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 181 N N Vicinity Map PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN SET: MEADOWBROOK MONTICELLO, MN Feet 0 100 200 I 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:_________________________ Feet 0 60 120 SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 2 N MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 3 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 22 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151613121110 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 3 2 1 7 1 20 19 18 17 161514 12 13 10 11 9 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 67 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 6 789101112 3 OUTLOT B 6 5 4 9 8 6 5 234 EDMONSON AVENUE NE 87 T H S T . N E P R O P O S E D R O A D COUNTRY AVE 89 T H S T R E E T N E P A R K DR I V E 1234567891011121234 1234 123 654 123 654 123 1 23 4 8 76 5 12 3 65 4 5 1234 8765 12 34 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 8 76 111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 OUTLOT D OUTLOT D OU T L O T D 23 PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY PLAT (OVERVIEW)MEADOWBROOK JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 4 N Feet 0 100 200 Preliminary Plat of MEADOWBROOK I 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:_________________________12-9-2418 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 2 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 OUTLOT B 89TH STREET NE PARK DRIVE 8 9 T H S T R E E T N E CO U N T R Y A V E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT DPR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY PLAT (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 5 N Preliminary Plat of MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 8 7654321 7 8321 7 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 1412 13 10 119 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 654 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED RO A D CO U N T R Y A V E 89TH STREET NE 87TH ST. NE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 OUTLOT D OU T L O T D OUTLOT D 23 PR I V A T E PR I V A T E PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROADPR I V A T E R O A D CO U N T R Y A V E SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com 12-9-24 PRELIMINARY PLAT (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 6 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOK Preliminary Plat of MEADOWBROOK I 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:_________________________18 CO U N T R Y A V E . PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N E 89TH ST. NE SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 7 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 87TH ST. NE 87TH ST NE ED M O N S O N A V E N E SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 8 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOKI 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:_________________________12-9-2418 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 2 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 95 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 OUTLOT B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT DPR I V A T E RO A D PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E PR I V A T E RO A D89TH STREET NECO U N T R Y A V E PRIVATE ROAD SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 9 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOK 12-9-2418 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 8 7654321 7 8321 7 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 1412 13 10 119 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 654 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 OUTLOT D OU T L O T D OUTLOT D 23 ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED RO A D AV E 89TH STREET NE PR I V A T E PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD CO U N T R Y SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 10 N Feet 0 60 120 MEADOWBROOK 12-9-2418 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OUTLOT B 89TH STREET NE PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 8 9 T H S T R E E T N E CO U N T R Y A V E 1 2 4 5 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 11 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 12-9-2418 OUTLOT D 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 87 654321 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 1412 13 10 11 9 7 4 3 21 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED RO A D CO U N T R Y 89TH STREET NE 6 8 9 10 11 AV E 87TH ST.NE 7 8321654 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 2 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 OUTLOT D OU T L O T D OUTLOT D 23 PR I V A T E PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 12 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 12-9-24 (Geotech recommends using onsite soils) 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OUTLOT B 89TH STREET NE PARK DRIVE ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 8 9 T H S T R E E T N E CO U N T R Y A V E 1 2 4 5 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 6 5 4 1 2 3 11 12 20 22 21 OUTLOT D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E RO A D PRIVATE ROAD SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN (NORTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 13 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 12-9-2418 OUTLOT D 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 12 11 10 87 654321 1 20 19 18 17 16 15 1412 13 10 11 9 7 4 3 21 5 6 7 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 54321 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 8 6 5 2 3 4 ED M O N S O N A V E N U E N E 87TH ST. NE PROPOSED RO A D CO U N T R Y 89TH STREET NE 6 8 9 10 11 AV E 87TH ST.NE 7 8321654 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 2 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 7 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 OUTLOT D OU T L O T D OUTLOT D 23 PR I V A T E PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN (SOUTH)JPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 14 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 60 120 12-9-2418 1 2 3 4 5 6 OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 1 2 3 1 22 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 4 12 3 4 5 6 78 9 5 6 1234 5 6 7 8 9 10 11121314151613121110 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 3 2 1 7 1 20 19 18 17 161514 12 13 10 11 9 7 9 8 10 4 3 2 1 5 67 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 5 4 3 2 1 6 789101112 3 OUTLOT B 6 5 4 9 8 6 5 234 1234567891011121234 1234 123 654 123 654 123 1 23 4 8 76 5 12 3 65 4 5 1 234 8765 12 34 1 2 3 4 1 23 4 8 76 111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 21 OUTLOT D OUTLOT D OU T L O T D 23 EDMONSON AVENUE NE 87 T H S T . N E P R O P O S E D R O A D COU N T R Y A V E 89 T H S T R E E T N E P A R K DR I V E 8 7 T H S T . N E 89TH STREET NEPRIVATE ROAD PRIVATE ROAD PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D PR I V A T E R O A D SHEET NO. O SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com PRELIMINARY SIGNAGE, LIGHTING, & MAILBOX PLANJPB LAND, LLC MONTICELLO, MN 24-0314 15 N MEADOWBROOK Feet 0 100 200 12-9-2418 DRAFT Memorandum www.srfconsulting.com 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 | Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 | 763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364 An Equal Opportunity Employer SRF No. 18533 To: Lucinda Spanier, Entitlements Manager JPB Land LLC From: Brent Clark, PE, Project Manager Ashley Sherry, PE, Engineer III Date: November 26, 2024 Subject: Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study; Monticello, Minnesota Introduction SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed Meadowbrook residential development in the City of Monticello, Minnesota. The proposed development is generally located east of Edmonson Avenue NE, between 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of the study are to evaluate existing operations within the study area, identify any transportation impacts associated with the proposed development, and recommend improvements to address any issues, if necessary. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and study recommendations offered for consideration. Previous Studies The Haven Ridge Development Traffic Study was developed by WSB in June 2024 (hereon referred to as the Haven Ridge Study) and evaluated the Haven Ridge residential development, which is located directly south of the proposed Meadowbrook development. Originally completed in August 2018, the study was recently updated to reflect the removal of approximately 60 single-family units, resulting in a decrease in the number of trips associated with the development. The current Haven Ridge development consists of a total of 298 residential units, which includes 226-units of single-family housing and 72-units of townhomes. The most recent Haven Ridge Study utilized traffic data from the previous study at six (6) study intersections, evaluated year 2030 traffic operations, and recommended various infrastructure improvements. The Haven Ridge development is expected to be completed by 2030, therefore, information from the Haven Ridge Study was leveraged to aide in the development of this study. 02418533 November 2024 Project Location Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 1 Haven Ridge Second Addition Development Haven Ridge Development Project Location School Boulevard 85th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e N E 87th Street NE 25 94 NORTHNo r t h Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 3 Existing Conditions Existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline to identify any future impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes a review of traffic volumes, roadway characteristics, and an intersection capacity analysis, which are summarized in the following sections. Data Collection Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak period vehicular turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts were collected at the following study intersections on Wednesday, October 9, 2024, while area schools were in session: · Edmonson Avenue NE and 89th Street NE · Edmonson Avenue NE and 87th Street NE · Edmonson Avenue NE and 85th Street NE Roadway Characteristics A field assessment was completed to identify various roadway characteristics within the transportation system study area, such as functional classification, general configuration, and posted speed limit. A summary of these roadway characteristics is shown in Table 1. Note that these are general characteristics and that there are some deviations within the area or segments of the roadways. Table 1. Existing Roadway Characteristics (1) Functional Classification based on the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. (2) Roadway has an unposted speed limit. Speed limit was assumed to be 30-mph. (3) Roadway has an unposted speed limit. Speed limit was assumed to be 45-mph. From a traffic control perspective, all study intersections are unsignalized with side-street stop control. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and traffic volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 2. Roadway Functional Classification (1) General Configuration Posted Speed Limit (mph) Edmonson Avenue NE Major Collector 2-lane undivided 45 89th Street NE Local Roadway 2-lane undivided 30 87th Street NE Local Roadway 2-lane undivided 30 (2) 85th Street NE Local Roadway 2-lane undivided 45 (3) 02418533 November 2024 Existing Conditions Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 2 Haven Ridge Second Addition Development Haven Ridge Development Project Location School Boulevard 85th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e N E 87th Street NE 25 XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Side-Street Stop Control LEGEND ( 1 2 ) 2 (1 2 1 ) 9 3 (1 7 ) 9 11 ( 1 8 ) 72 ( 9 5 ) 2 ( 8 ) 85th Street NE (8) 12 (37) 43 (4) 9 6 (7) 27 (38) 19 (21) Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e ( 6 ) 0 (1 3 0 ) 1 11 14 ( 2 3 ) 84 ( 1 2 0 ) 87th Street NE (27) 27 (1) 1 Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e NORTHNo r t h ( 7 ) 3 (1 5 0 ) 1 3 5 16 ( 5 3 ) 95 ( 1 4 0 ) 89th Street NE (30) 52 (3) 3 Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 5 Intersection Capacity Analysis An intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software to establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are graded from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 2. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable based on MnDOT guidelines. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 For side-street stop-controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side- street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high-levels of delay (i.e., poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing capacity analysis, shown in Table 3, indicate that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with the existing traffic control and geometric layout. No significant side-street stop delay or queuing issues were observed. Table 3. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Edmonson Avenue NE and 89th Street NE (1) A/A 5 sec. A/A 5 sec. Edmonson Avenue NE and 87th Street NE (1) A/A 5 sec. A/A 5 sec. Edmonson Avenue NE and 85th Street NE (1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 7 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst side-street approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 6 Proposed Development As mentioned previously, the proposed development is generally located east of Edmonson Avenue NE, between 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE. The proposed development consists of a total of 182 residential units, which include 109-units of single-family housing and 73-units of townhomes. A preliminary site plan for the proposed development is illustrated in Figure 3, which was used as the basis for the traffic analysis. The development is anticipated to be fully constructed and operational by the year 2030. Access to the development is proposed on the east legs of the 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE intersections along Edmonson Avenue NE. In addition, the proposed development is expected to include neighborhood connections to Country Avenue to the north and 87th Street NE to the east. Year 2030 Build Conditions To identify the impacts associated with the proposed development, traffic forecasts for year 2030 build conditions were developed. The year 2030 build conditions take into account the planned adjacent development (i.e. Haven Ridge development), general background growth, and traffic generated by the proposed development. The following sections provide detail on the proposed development trip generation, intersection capacity analysis, and potential improvement considerations. Background Traffic Growth To account for general background growth in the area, a growth rate of two (2) percent was applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2030 background forecasts. This growth rate was developed using a combination of historical average daily traffic (ADT) volumes from surrounding roadways published by MnDOT, traffic forecasts from both the City of Monticello and Wright County Comprehensive Plans, and engineering judgment. It should be noted that this growth rate is generally consistent with the growth assumptions as part of the Haven Ridge Study. Adjacent Developments (Haven Ridge) As previously noted, the Haven Ridge development is located in the southeast quadrant of the Edmonson Avenue NE and 85th Street NE intersection, which is directly south of the proposed Meadowbrook development. The development impacts were evaluated as part of the Haven Ridge Study, which was originally completed in 2018 and updated in June 2024. Since completion of the study, construction has begun for the second addition which is located east of the proposed development. The current Haven Ridge development consists of a total of 298 residential units, which includes 226-units of single-family housing and 72-units of townhomes. Therefore, to account for the most updated land use plans, site trips were utilized from the latest Haven Ridge Study, and distributed to the adjacent roadway network. It should be noted that the development is expected to be completed by 2030, therefore, was included in the 2030 build analysis. The adjacent development is expected to account for approximately 112 a.m. and 146 p.m. peak hour trips along Edmonson Avenue NE, near the proposed access locations. 02418533 November 2024 Site Plan Figure 3Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study City of Monticello Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 8 Proposed Development Trip Generation To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, trip generation estimates for the proposed land uses were developed for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours and a daily basis. The estimates, shown in Table 4, were developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Table 4. Proposed Development Trip Generation Estimate Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Trips In Out In Out Single-Family Attached Housing (215) 73 DU 9 26 25 17 526 Single-Family Detached Housing (210) 109 DU 19 57 65 37 1,028 Total Site Trips 28 83 90 54 1,554 Results of the trip generation estimate indicate that the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 111 a.m. peak hour, 144 p.m. peak hour, and 1,554 daily trips. The trips generated were distributed throughout the area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 4, which was developed based on existing travel patterns and engineering judgement. The resultant year 2030 build traffic forecasts, which include general area background growth, adjacent development trips (i.e. Haven Ridge), and traffic generated by the proposed development are shown in Figure 5. Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine how the study intersections will accommodate the year 2030 build traffic forecasts, an intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic. Results of the analysis, which is summarized in Table 5, indicate that all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at an overall LOS A during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. No side-street stop delay or queuing issues are expected. Table 5. 2030 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Edmonson Avenue NE and 89th Street NE (1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 7 sec. Edmonson Avenue NE and 87th Street NE (1) A/A 6 sec. A/A 6 sec. Edmonson Avenue NE and 85th Street NE (1) A/A 7 sec. A/A 10 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst side-street approach LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. 02418533 November 2024 Directional Distribution Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 4 To/From East/Northeast 85th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e N E 87th Street NE 25 87th Street NE Co u n t y Ave n u e NORTHNo r t h 5% 5% 40 % 15% Haven Ridge Development Haven Ridge Second Addition Development School Boulevard35% 02418533 November 2024 Year 2030 Build Conditions Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 5 Haven Ridge Second Addition Development Haven Ridge Development School Boulevard 85th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e N E 87th Street NE 25 XX (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Side-Street Stop Control LEGEND ( 2 0 ) 5 (1 5 5 ) 1 3 0 (2 5 ) 1 5 20 ( 2 5 ) 95 ( 1 4 0 ) 25 ( 7 5 ) 85th Street NE (15) 15 (50) 55 (10) 15 70 (50) 40 (50) 30 (30) Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e ( 1 0 ) 0 (2 0 5 ) 2 1 0 (1 0 ) 5 20 ( 3 0 ) 13 0 ( 2 3 0 ) 10 ( 3 0 ) 87th Street NE (30) 30 (0) 0 (5) 5 Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e NORTHNo r t h 89th Street NE Ed m o n s o n Ave n u e 25 (20) 0 (0) 10 (5) ( 1 0 ) 5 (2 4 0 ) 2 6 0 (5 ) 5 20 ( 6 0 ) 14 5 ( 2 8 0 ) 15 ( 4 5 ) (35) 60 (0) 0 (5) 5 40 (30) 0 (0) 5 (5) Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 11 Based on the year 2030 build conditions operations analysis, no geometric or traffic control changes are needed to accommodate the proposed development from an operations perspective. However, given Edmonson Avenue NE is a high-speed (45-mph) roadway, turn lanes could be considered at the access locations from a safety perspective. Therefore, the following two (2) improvement options are provided for consideration to improve safety at the study intersections: o Option 1: The City of Monticello’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes the reconstruction of Edmonson Avenue NE, between Chelsea Avenue and School Boulevard, as part of the Pointes at Cedar project. The reconstruction project, scheduled for 2029, is expected to reconfigure this section of Edmonson Avenue NE from a two-lane undivided roadway to a three-lane urban configuration with a two-way left-turn lane. Given the surrounding land use (i.e. residential, schools, and parks) of the development area, consider extending the three-lane section from School Boulevard to 85th Street NE. This extension would help lower speeds along Edmonson Avenue NE, providing the ability to improve pedestrian safety, crossings, and connectivity, while complementing the surrounding developing area. o Option 2: Consider reconfiguring the existing bypass lanes at the 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE intersections to provide left-turn lanes for both northbound and southbound approaches (see Figure 6). Given that a large portion of development traffic is expected to travel to/from the north, southbound left-turn lanes would be beneficial from a safety perspective and would be considered warranted based on AASHTO guidance. While northbound right-turn lanes could also be considered at the access locations, in addition to the two options provided, traffic to/from the south is expected to be minimal. As a result, such lanes would not be warranted based on Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) guidelines. Neighborhood Connections As mentioned previously, the proposed development is expected to include roadway connections to Country Avenue to the north and 87th Street NE to the east. Depending on users’ origins and destinations, some users of the proposed development are expected to utilize these neighborhood connections. As shown in the inset, approximately 85 and 90 new daily trips are expected to route to/from Country Avenue and 87th Street NE, respectively. Note these volumes are expected to be minimal, with between five (5) and 10 vehicles during peak hours (i.e. one (1) car every six (6) to 12 minutes), and no issues are expected. 02418533 November 2024 Improvement Considerations - Option 2 Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study Monticello, MN Figure 6 89t h S t r e e t N E 87th Street NE - Existing Geometry - Proposed Geometry LEGEND NORTHNo r t h Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 13 Site Plan Review A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to internal roadways, access, traffic controls, sight distance, circulation, and multimodal facilities. The following information should be considered when designing internal traffic controls and access roadways: Incorporate traffic controls, signing, and stripping based on guidelines establish in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Special consideration should be made to limit any sight distance impacts from future structures, landscaping, and signing. In general, all roadways within the proposed development are expected to function adequately as two- lane facilities. Internal intersections are also expected to operate adequately with side-street stop control. As development occurs, internal intersections should be reviewed to determine if a higher level of traffic control (i.e. an all-way stop) should be considered. Summary and Conclusion SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed residential development in the City of Monticello, Minnesota. The proposed development is generally located east of Edmonson Avenue NE, between 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE. Key findings of the traffic study are summarized below: 1) Existing Conditions: a. All study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during peak hours, and no operational or queuing issues were observed. 2) Traffic Forecasts: a. Proposed Development: The proposed development consists of a total of 182 residential units, which includes 109-units of single-family housing and 73-units of townhomes. Access to the development will be provided at the 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE intersections along Edmonson Avenue NE, as well as through neighborhood connections to Country Avenue to the north and 87th Street NE to the east. The development is expected to generate 111 a.m. peak hour trips, 144 p.m. peak hour trips, and 1,554 daily trips. b. Background Growth: A growth rate of two (2) percent was applied to existing peak hour traffic volumes to account for background traffic increases, based on historical data and traffic forecasts from the City and County comprehensive plans. c. Adjacent Development: The Haven Ridge development, located south of the proposed development, is expected to be completed by 2030. Therefore, the updated Haven Ridge site trips were included in the analysis, which forecasts 112 a.m. peak Meadowbrook Residential Development Traffic Study November 26, 2024 Page 14 hour trips and 146 p.m. peak hour trips along Edmonson Avenue NE, near the proposed access locations. 3) Future Operations: a. Year 2030 Build Conditions: The study area transportation network is expected to adequately support both the proposed and adjacent developments under 2030 conditions. No queueing or delay issues are expected at the study intersections. b. Improvement Considerations: Although no operational issues are expected, two (2) improvement considerations were provided from a safety perspective: i. Option 1: Extend the planned three-lane configuration of Edmonson Avenue NE, currently set to span from Chelsea Avenue to School Boulevard, further south to 85th Street NE. This extension could help reduce speeds and improve pedestrian safety, crossings, and connectivity. ii. Option 2: Reconfigure the existing bypass lanes at the 89th Street NE and 87th Street NE intersections to include left-turn lanes for both northbound and southbound approaches. This improvement would enhance safety, particularly for southbound traffic, given most users from the development are destined to/from the north. c. Neighborhood Connections: The proposed development will include roadway connections to Country Avenue and 87th Street NE, with an estimated 85 to 90 new daily trips using these routes. These volumes are expected to be minimal, with only 5 to 10 vehicles during peak hours (about one car every 6 to 12 minutes), and no issues are expected. 4) Site Plan Review: a. A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential improvements with regard to internal roadways, access, traffic controls, and circulation. LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 52MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN MONTICELLO, MN GROWTH STRATEGY MAP - EXHIBIT 3.2 DECEMBER 2020 1 inch = 2,250 feet PROJECT TEAM: PREPARED FOR: CITY OF MONTICELLO THE LAKOTA GROUP WSB © 2020 THE LAKOTA GROUP GROWTH STRATEGY MAP EXHIBIT 3.2 North Primary Growth Secondary Growth Tertiary Growth Land - Not Applicable City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Note: The land categorized “Not Applicable” is either: • located outside the Monticello Township boundary • protected as a wetland • designated as Open Space and Resource Conservation or City Parks and Recreation 94 25 131 94 PIN E S T PIN E S T ELM S T ELM S T BRO A D W A Y S T BRO A D W A Y S T CHE L S E A R D CHE L S E A R D JA S O N A V E N E JA S O N A V E N E ED M O N S O N A V E ED M O N S O N A V E FE N N I N G A V E FE N N I N G A V E SCHOOL BLVDSCHOOL BLVD 85TH ST NE85TH ST NE COUNTY RD 39 NECOUNTY RD 39 NE COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE 80TH ST NE80TH ST NE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020 ADOPTION North GROWTH STRATEGY MAP EXHIBIT 3.2 Primary Growth Secondary Growth Tertiary Growth Land - Not Applicable City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Note: The land categorized “Not Applicable” is either: • located outside the Monticello Township boundary • protected as a wetland • designated as Open Space and Resource Conservation or City Parks and Recreation MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 55MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN MONTICELLO, MN FUTURE LAND USE MAP - EXHIBIT 3.3 DECEMBER 2020 1 inch = 2,250 feet PROJECT TEAM: PREPARED FOR: CITY OF MONTICELLO THE LAKOTA GROUP WSB © 2020 THE LAKOTA GROUP City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 North 94 25 131 94 PIN E S T PIN E S T ELM S T ELM S T BRO A D W A Y S T BRO A D W A Y S T CHE L S E A R D CHE L S E A R D JA S O N A V E N E JA S O N A V E N E ED M O N S O N A V E ED M O N S O N A V E FE N N I N G A V E FE N N I N G A V E SCHOOL BLVDSCHOOL BLVD 85TH ST NE85TH ST NE COUNTY RD 39 NECOUNTY RD 39 NE COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUN T Y R D 3 9 N E COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE 80TH ST NE80TH ST NE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 2 3RD , 2020 ADOPTION FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) North MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 71 Primary Mode Vehicular (slow speeds) Secondary Mode Pedestrian paths and trails Bicycle facilities and parking Transit or Shuttle Service MOBILITY DEVELOPMENT FORM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) The Low-Density Residential designation corresponds to the majority of Monticello’s single-family residential neighborhoods. These areas are characterized by subdivisions of detached homes, usually on lots from 7,000 to 14,000 square feet. Housing in this designation includes single-family detached residential units as well as detached accessory structures. Other compatible uses, such as schools, nursing homes, private parks and religious facilities may also locate in this designation. • Density - 3-6 units/acre (Low-Density Residential) • Height - 1-2 stories • Lot Area - 6,000-14,000 sq. ft. per unit VISUAL EXAMPLE LOT PATTERN LAND USE MIX Residential • Single-Family • Other Low-Density Residential uses Public/institutional • Schools Recreational • Parks/Playgrounds Open Space • Sensitive Habitat 2018 Correlating Zoning DistrictZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District R-A Residential Amenities District R-1 Single-Family Residence District Housing Needs and DemandCity of Monticello 64 entry-level AFFordABility $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 Mon�cello Buffalo Becker Big Lake Saint Michael stArter home vAlue Source: Zillow Data and Research (MLS Aggregator) lower-income households that own their housing commonly occupy what is referred to as the “starter home” market. For purposes of this study, this is tracked as the “Bottom Tier Home Value” and is the median of the 5th to 35th percentile of all home values within the City. These homes followed the same general trend both going into and coming out of the recession - showing consistent steady increases in cost over the past decade. Amongst peer communities, Monticello still has the lowest-cost entry point into the ownership market, even considering appreciation. However, the “starter home” market is still becoming increasingly unaffordable for those who live in the City. As of the most recent data and estimates (2023), the median starter-home cost is just out of reach of the affordability limit for a City household earning 80% of the median income ($269,000 home entry cost vs. $263,000 purchase limit). As housing costs continue to rise throughout the market, Monticello households below the AMI will be increasingly precluded or “priced-out” of ownership opportunities in the City, consistent with occupancy and consumption records. HouseholdIncome With Mortgage Without Mortgage 0% - 50% AMI 200 330 51% - 80% AMI 265 85 81% - 100% AMI 215 45 > 100% AMI 429 110 occuPAnt incomes oF houses AFFordABle to 50% Ami households Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 65 Ownership Market Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy house AvAilABility single-unit home AvAilABility as tracked by the Multiple listing Service is often inversely related to prices - as inventory decreases, prices increase. As the local housing market was coming out of the recession, there was a market slowdown - though this slowdown (as represented by months’ of supply) still indicated a balanced market. Months’ supply is generally considered to be balanced when there are 4-6 months’ of inventory in the market. As that lessens, it is indicative of increased competition for available homes in what is often referred to as a “seller’s market”. Since peaking in 2011 at more than three months, the average days on market has dropped to a steady 2-3 weeks on market over the past 4 years. There is seasonal variation within the data that reflect common market periods, but time on market has generally decreased to a point where during peak real estate season, houses have averaged less than 3 weeks since 2016. This increased sales activity is directly reflected in the months of supply metric, as it is the balance between inventory and demand (number of sales). Together, these metrics indicate a competitive market with increased competition among buyers that is causing cost inflation well beyond the 2% average U.S. inflation rate. A slight increase in months supply in recent years may be due to the increase in units coming online within the City which can signal a return to a more balanced market. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Mo n t hs S u p ply Da ys on M a r ket Days on Market Months Supply single-FAmily AvAilABility 5-yeAr APPreciAtion on mediAn sF home (By sAles Price): 9.3% AnnuAlly $130,450 5-yeAr AverAge APPreciAtion rAte on mediAn sF home: Source: Multiple Listing Service Source: Multiple Listing Service Housing Needs and DemandCity of Monticello 66 house AvAilABility $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 30 Yr. Fixed Mortgage Rate Monthly Inventory Median Sales Price 3.7%4.5%2.7%6.8%5.5% monthly inventory Source: Multiple Listing Service inventory of single-family houses for sale slowly decreased from 2015 to 2021, with a slight increase in the last two years. As inventory decreased, the median sales price showed steady corresponding increases - with fewer homes available, and steady demand, markets shift toward favoring sellers through increased competition and appreciation. As available supply has slightly increased over the past two years, there was still a marked increase in the median sales price due to the skyrocketing demand for home buying coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic amid very low interest rates. With recent high interest rates, the sales price should stabilize. From January 2015 to January 2021 during the period of decreasing inventory, the median home appreciated at a rate of 10.2% annually. The recent slight increase in inventory has correlated with appreciated price at a rate of 5.2% annually for the median home. This shows that increasing inventory helps to ease pressures on the market that cause cost increases, though the months of supply metric indicates there is still demand for units in the market that will further shift buyer/seller indices toward a more balanced market. townhome AvAilABility And cost Source: Multiple Listing Service 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 Months Supp ly Pr i c e/S q . � Price/Sq. �.Months Supply 67 Ownership Market house sAles sAle to list Price rAtios also display trends in the ownership market that indicate increased competition on an year-to-year basis - though stabilizing as inventory of units on the market has also stabilized. Since coming out of the recession, sellers have generally accepted offers that have been more than 95% of the asking price for single- family homes in the City. The greatest peak in this ratio came amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the summer of 2021 when sellers accepted offers that were nearly 105% of their list price. With increasing supply coming in 2022, the sale to list price ratio dipped slightly, tracking with the slight decrease in median sales price. This is consistent with growth in number of units and indicative of a healthy market. townhome Pct oF originAl Price (August 2023)100% for 3 consecutive months 100% or over for 4 consecutive months single-FAmily Pct oF originAl Price (August 2023) Source: Multiple Listing Service 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% Townhome Single-Family mediAn sAles Price comPAred to listing Source: Multiple Listing Service Housing Needs and DemandCity of Monticello 68 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% Mon�cello Big Lake Buffalo Saint Michael single FAmily sAles Price comPAred to listing, Peer communities house sAles regionAl sAles trends largely indicate a tightening (increased demand) of the market for many peer communities as well. Though Monticello’s market was slightly slower to see increased competition and increasing offers post-recession (when tracked through sale:listing ratio), it then increased to become the second community to see the median sale cost meeting asking price, behind only Big Lake. Monticello has the highest current sale:list price ratio among its peer communities, though many have shown a consistency through the past year. Off-peak sales without a large percent decrease in sales price indicates that growth potential for the region is strong, and demand is shifting into other areas. It also likely indicates that Monticello (as the community with the largest ratio) is seeing demand that it cannot fill with the existing stock, which has spillover into other regional communities (both peer communities and others), although this is impossible to tell solely from data. townhome Pct oF originAl Price in Peer communities (july 2020) 99% in July 2020 100% for 4 consecutive months single-FAmily Pct oF originAl Price in Peer communities (july 2020) Source: Multiple Listing Service Source: Multiple Listing Service Housing Needs and DemandCity of Monticello 102 unit deMAnd Findings & Recommendations 102 Housing Needs and DemandCity of Monticello 104 owner demAnd - low estimAte Growth projections for the City of Monticello indicate that current household growth rates will continue - and may have the potential to increase. More commuters are looking to call Monticello home. More area residents would like more options in the housing market. This demand analysis identifies a need to increase the number of ownership units in the City - creating more opportunity for ownership that can serve residents and newcomers alike. There are two pages of demand analysis per housing tenure type (ownership and rental) - this is done to illustrate the range of potential growth that the City may undergo. In general, low estimates are based on 1.7% household growth, and high estimates are based upon 2.9% household growth. Some assumptions in each are the same - such as the need to bring vacancy back to healthy levels, and decrease the rapid speed of cost increases on housing. Other estimates differ based on current best projections. Final unit estimates are broken down by total projection of unit need from 2020 to 2028, projected unit need subtracting out permitted units (units constructed or under construction), and projected unit need subtracting out permitted units and units with land use and land division approval (anticipated units). The low estimate should be used as a baseline - a minimum threshold for unit construction, not just plats. New Construction Ownership Housing Demand from 2020 to 2028- Low Estimate Demand from Household Growth Within the City Household Growth from 2020 to 2028 644 additional households New Household Ownership Rate 50% Demand for New Construction 322 ownership units Demand from Existing Resident Households Current Owner Households 3,082 households Current Owners Actively Looking for New Housing 10.0% Increased Demand from Existing Residents 308 ownership units Desire for New Construction 56% Existing Resident Demand for New Construction 173 ownership units Total Demand for New Construction Ownership Units = 495 units Preference for SF-Detached 70%Preference for SF-Attached 30% #347 units #148 units Additional Need for Vacancy 54 units Additional Need for Vacancy 23 units Total SF-Detached Need 401 units Total SF-Attached Need 171 units Total Ownership Unit Need = 572 units Total Need minus Permitted Units = 401 units Total Need minus Permitted Units & Approved Units = 284 units 105 Unit Demand & Recommendations New Construction Ownership Housing Demand from 2020 to 2028- High Estimate Demand from Household Growth Within the City Household Growth from 2020 to 2028 1,159 additional households New Household Ownership Rate 50% Demand for New Construction 579 ownership units Demand from Existing Resident Households Current Owner Households 3,082 households Current Owners Actively Looking for New Housing 10.0% Increased Demand from Existing Residents 308 ownership units Desire for New Construction 56% Existing Resident Demand for New Construction 173 ownership units Total Demand for New Construction Ownership Units = 752 units Preference for SF-Detached 70%Preference for SF-Attached 30% #526 units #226 units Additional Need for Vacancy 54 units Additional Need for Vacancy 23 units Total SF-Detached Need 580 units Total SF-Attached Need 249 units Total Ownership Unit Need = 829 units Total Need minus Permitted Units = 658 units Total Need minus Permitted Units & Approved Units = 541 units owner demAnd - high estimAte This high estimate should be used as a goal - a measure of units that could be constructed in the market to provide additional housing choice - in location, type, and price point for buyers at any given point in time. Community feedback through this process indicated the desire that there be multiple areas under different stages of development at the same time, so that buyers who want to move to the City have areas to choose in where to call home. This estimate would likely require multiple active subdivisions in order to have the demand met and fully constructed by 2028. Development interest and demand drive the housing market. Due to lending requirements and market analyses needed for large-scale developer investment, if there is developer interest, there is also likely demand. Housing Needs and DemandCity of Monticello 106 ownershiP Findings generAl conditions imPActing the housing mArket: • Average household size has remained stable (p. 8) • Families and home-office preferences sustaining need for larger units (p. 8) • Aging households are the fastest increasing demographic since 2010 (p. 9) • Aging households will be a significant portion of households through 2050 (p. 12) • Monticello residents have lower average incomes compared to peer communities (p. 13) • Monticello residents have lower degrees of educational attainment compared to the County (p. 14) • Common occupation groups in the City indicate a need for affordable housing, especially for entry-level positions (p. 16) • Large shares of residents (48% as of 2020) commute into metro counties daily for work. Forty-eight percent of community survey respondents indicated Twin Cities or a suburb as place of employment (p. 18) • Housing unit production has not kept pace with new households moving to the County, decreasing vacancy and increasing cost (p. 19) • Rising costs and interest rates have made the development process more difficult (p. 97) • Vacancy rates continue to be low in the City and region, despite strong unit production (p. 104) whAt residents wAnt: • Increase in zero-entry, patio, and rambler style homes • Detached, accessory, missing middle, and townhome units • Affordable starter-home development in proximity to amenities • Areas with different development options to build in mAjor ownershiP mArket Findings: • Ownership units have made up 25.3% of planned or constructed developments since 2020, well below historic building trends (p. 6) • Though the majority of ownership housing is single-family detached, there are also many attached ownership units (p. 51) • Owners make up a smaller portion of the overall housing market than in most regional communities (p. 53). Now at 70% of housing market as of 2021. • Though affordable homes exist in the market, residents still identified the largest negative aspect of the market as lack of affordability, with more than half of survey respondents indicating that affordable housing is becoming harder to find (p. 58) • There are generally more affordable ownership opportunities in the city core, though attached ownership units are affordable in many areas (p. 60) • Many households are remaining in their housing longer than the 7-year national average (p. 61) • Since 2014, home costs have drastically outpaced income growth with single-family home value reducing affordability and access for potential homebuyers (p. 62) • The median single-family home value is now greater than the median income affordability limit (p. 62) • The median home cost has more than doubled since 2010 (p. 62) • Among its peers, Monticello has the lowest- cost entry point for a median starter home (p. 64) • The median starter home in the City is no longer affordable to households earning 80% AMI (p. 64) • Monticello has the current highest Sales:List price ratio among peer communities (p. 68) • There is demand for ownership townhomes (p. 70) Planning Commission Agenda – 2/04/25 1 4A. Community Development Director’s Report Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations • Consideration of approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed Vehicle Sales and Rental Use in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Mohammad Awad Approved on the consent agenda of the City Council on January 27, 2025. Cannabis Licensing The Office of Cannabis Management has released draft rulemaking for the cannabis business licensure process. Comments are due February 12, 2025. Staff will review and comments as needed based on the purpose and intent of Monticello’s code adoption. Upcoming Workshops Given the length of the February agenda, City Engineer Matt Leonard’s planned discussion of the CIP and other public improvement projects will move to a future meeting. A March workshop with City Council on a concept proposal has been tentatively scheduled. The joint workshop on the updated Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Agreement will need to move to April or May. An update from the City’s Economic Development Manager on EDA projects is also planned for later this spring/summer. Department Staffing Anne Mueller has accepted the Administrative Assistant position in the Development Services department and will be starting on February 18th. She brings several years of administrative support experience. The Building Inspector/Fire Inspector position opening closed in late January. Staff hope to fill the position by the end of March. The position was vacated by Bob Ferguson, who was named as the Chief Building Official. EDAM Award The Block 52 Redevelopment Project was awarded the 2024 Economic Development Project of the Year for Greater Minnesota at the recent Economic Development Association of Minnesota (EDAM) Winter Conference. The award recognizes excellence in project development and execution. EDAM is an association of economic development professionals. Congratulations to all of those involved! Block 34 Update The EDA has taken the formal step of directing the redevelopment of publicly owned efforts on the block through a master developer. The EDA has selected Kraus Anderson as Planning Commission Agenda – 2/04/25 2 the master developer and will be reviewing preliminary development contract and other project-related proposals in February. The selection of Kraus Anderson as a master developer will support a coordinated approach to the site redevelopment in concert with the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan. Project Update List The project update list current through January 2025 is attached. Staff is also working on a project map which combines this information with a summary of that included on the Projects page of the City website. Website Project Page A reminder to stay current with news and information by visiting: Projects | Monticello, MN Concept Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Review Date & Info Progress Report Project V Commercial/Light Industrial 88 acre parcel bounded by The Meadows to the North, Highway 25 to the West, 85th Street NE to the South, and the Featherstoe Residential neighbohood to the East Concept Stage review for a planned unit development for a multi-phase Medical Office Buildings on roughly 25 acres, with subsequent phases of private development to follow. Joint City Council and Planning Commission review on 3/25/24 On hold General Equipment Industrial 13 acre parcel along CSAH 39 and West Chelsea Road Concept Stage review for planned unit development for Machinery/Truck Repair and Sales Joint City Council and Planning Commission review on 7/2/24 Post Concept Stage PUD, Pre-Development Stage PUD Application Submittal Tamarack/The Meadows at Pioneer Park Residential 68 acre parcels along Fallon Avenue Concept Stage review for planned unit development for single-family residential Reviewed in Joint PC/CC on 9/16/24 Concept Stage PUD Submittal, Annexation Petition pending Pending Land Use Application Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Approval Date & Info Progress Report Haven Ridge West Residential Near the Southeast corner of 85th Street NE and Fallon Ave NE, Also South of 85th Street NE between Eislele Ave NE and Edmonson Ave NE Concept Stage review for a planned unit development for a 298-unit residential development with various lot sizes and townhome section Reviewed by Planning Commission on 1/7/25 Tabled from January Planning Commission Meeting Mastercraft Outdoors PUD Industrial 1.46 acre vacant lot along the West side of Fallon Ave NE between Washburn Computer Group and Norland Truck Sales Development Stage review for a planned unit development of a vacant site for an Industrial Service use Reviewed by Planning Commission on 7/2/24 Development Stage PUD Application Submittal approved; pending Final Stage and Rezoning, likely to be on March PC Agenda JPB Land/Meadowbrook Residential 44 acre parcel along Edmonson Avenue Concept Stage review for planned unit development for single-family residential Reviewed in Joint PC/CC on 9/3/24 2/4/2025 Tabled from January Planning Commission Previously Approved Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Approval Date & Info Progress Report Broadway Plaza PUD Commercial 6321 E. Broadway Street bound by Interstate 94 to the North and East Broadway Street to the South Development Stage PUD and preliminary plat for a 76-room hotel, 15,000 square-foot event center, 6,800 square-foot restaurant, and a 6,000 square-foot post-frame building. 11/24/2024 Approved 11.25.24, Annexation Pending Twin Pines Apartments Residential South Side of School Blvd. East of Wal-Mart 96 multi-family unit apartment building 2/28/2022 Yet to Break Ground/Received Plat Ext. on 1/22/24 Block 52 Redevelopment Mixed-Use NE Corner of Highway 25 and Broadway St 87 multi-family units with rougly 30,000 sq ft of 1st floor commercial 7/11/2022 Continued leasing of commercial spaces Featherstone 6th Addition Residential North of 85th St NE and West of Highway 25 21 Single-family lots with commercially guided outlots for future development 4/25/2022 Under Construction; last lot permit issued Haven Ridge 2nd Addition Residential South of Farmstead Ave and West of Fallon Ave NE 59 Single-Family Lot Development Reapproved 8/28/2023 Home sites under construction Country Club Manor 3rd/4th Addition Residential Along South side of 7th St W between Elm St and Golf Course Rd 82 Twinhomes Senior 55+ Development 4/22/2024 Under construction, home sites under construction Deephaven 3 (Lot 2)Commercial Southeast corner of Cedar St and Chelsea Rd New Construction of a Clinic/Medical Service Facility (10,000 sq ft)N/A (Permitted Use)Completed Jimmy Johns/Baskin Robbins Commercial Southeast Corner of Oakwood Drive E and Cedar Street New Construction of Quick Service Restaurant with Drive-Through Service 1/22/2024 Withdrawn Big River Commercial Vacant property north of Chelsea Rd, south of Interstate 94, and west of Fenning Avenue PUD for New Construction of two commercial lots for a quick-service restaurant and a coffee shop, with 6 lots platted for subsequent commercial development. 4/8/2024 Commenced, Chipotle open and Starbucks finalizing construction Panera Bread Commercial Vacant Lot west of Mattress Firm/AT&T location on E. 7th Street New Construction of a Panera Bread Location (Restaurant and Drive-through service) in the B- 4, Regional Business District 5/28/2024 Open to the public Holiday Store EV Charging Stations Commercial 110 Oakwood Drive E.Installation of up to 12 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Lot behind Building 5/28/2024 Construction commenced StorageLink (Dundas Site) PUD and Plat Commercial 36 Dundas Road (Southeast corner of Dundas Road and Cedar Street)Preliminary & Final Plat of Cedar Street Storage, Dev. & Final Stage PUD for expansion of permanent storage area 6/24/2024 Construction commenced Rockstone Auto Commercial 219 Sandberg Road Conditional Use Permit Request for Minor Automotive use as a Principal Use in the B-3, Highway Business District 1/27/2025 Approved Fairfield Inn & Restaurant Commercial Along south side of Chelsea Road directly north of Deephaven Apartments Development Stage Permit (CUP) for construction of a 98-room hotel and restaurant in the northern "Populus" biome of the Pointes at Cedar District 7/22/2024 Development Stage permit approved; pending conditions resolution and building permit Wendy's CUP Commercial Near Highland Way, Union Crossings Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to PUD and accessory drive-through 9/23/2024 Approved; building permit submitted Valvoline Commercial Big River 445 PUD Amdt to Big River 445 PUD and Development and Final State PUD - Auto Repair - Minor 10/28/2024 Approved; building permit submitted Les Schwab Commercial Big River 445 PUD Amdt to Big River 445 PUD and Development and Final State PUD - Auto Repair - Minor 10/28/2024 Approved, building permit submitted MONTICELLO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS