Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/2019 Meeting M eeting L ocation: M unicipal Center 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, M innesota 55124 September 26, 2019 C IT Y C O UN C IL REG ULA R MEET IN G T EN TAT IVE A G EN D A 7:00 P M 1.C all to Order and Pledge 2.Approve Agenda 3.Audience - 10 Minutes Total Time Limit - For Items N O T on this Agenda 4.Approve C onsent Agenda Items C onsent Agenda Items are considered routine and will be enacted with a single motion, without discussion, unless a councilmember or citizen requests to have any item separately considered. It will then be moved to the regular agenda f or consideration. A.Approve Minutes of September 12, 2019, Regular Meeting B.Approve Change in Manager for D & D of Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a Famous Dave's BBQ Shack, 7593 147th Street W., in Connection with On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Licenses C .Approve Changes in Ownership and Managers for LSP Ventures, Inc., d/b/a Rascals Apple Valley Bar & Grill, 7721 147th Street W., in Connection with On-Sale Liquor Licenses D.Approve Release of Financial Guarantee E.Approve Wetland Delineation for Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Project F.Adopt Resolution Directing Preparation of Plans and Specifications and Accepting Feasibility Study for Project 2020-101, 2020 Street and Utility Improvements G.Adopt Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for C ity Hall - Lower Level Buildout and Authorizing Advertising for Receipt of Bids at 10:00 a.m. on October 15, 2019 H.Water Efficiency Grant 1. Authorize Submittal of Water Efficiency Grant Application to Met Council 2. Approve J oint Powers Agreement with Dakota C ounty for Grant Administrative Services I.Approve Agreement with Independent School District 196 for Police Liaison Services J .Approve Agreement with Dermco-LaVine C onstruction Co., for Project 2019-159, Wildwood Park C ourt Surface Replacement K.Approve Change Order No. 1 to Agreement with Keys Well Drilling Company for Project 2018-146, 2018 Observation Well Installation, and Approve Acceptance and Final Payment L.Approve Change Order No. 1 to Agreement with Sewer Services, Inc., for Project 2019-147, 2019 Sump Catch Basin Cleaning - Residential, and Approve Acceptance and Final Payment M.Approve Personnel Report N.Approve Claims and Bills 5.Regular Agenda Items A.Introduction and Oath of Office of Police Officer Miranda Demo B.Minnesota Zoo 1. Proclaim a Business Leader in C onnection with Apple Valley's 50th Golden Year Celebration 2. Adopt Resolution in Support of State Financial Assistance for the Minnesota Zoo C .Proclaim October 6 through 12, 2019, as "Fire Prevention Week" and Authorize Activities Planned at Fire Stations D.Adopt Resolution(s) Regarding C omprehensive Plan Amendment Re- designating 23 Acres Located on Northwest C orner of 140th Street W. and Garden View Drive (8661 140th Street W.) E.Adopt Resolution Regarding Hearing Officer's Recommended Findings and Decision Relative to Massage T herapy Business License for Impression Spa, LLC , and Massage T herapist License for Yuanling Lan 6.Staff and C ouncil C ommunications A.Residential C lean-up Day 7.Approve C alendar of Upcoming Events 8.Adjourn Regular meetings are broadcast, live, on Charter Communications Cable Channel 180 and on the C ity's website at www.cityof applevalley.org I T E M: 4.A. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Minutes of September 12, 2019, Regular Meeting S taff Contact: P amela J . Gackstetter, City Clerk Department / Division: City Clerk’s Office AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 12, 2019. S UM M ARY: T he minutes from the last regular C ity C ouncil meeting are attached for your review and approval. B AC K G RO UND: State statute requires the creation and preservation of meeting minutes which document the official actions and proceedings of public governing bodies. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S : Minutes CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota September 12, 2019 Minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, held September 12, 2019, at 7:00 o’clock p.m., at Apple Valley Municipal Center. PRESENT: Mayor Hamann-Roland; Councilmembers Bergman, Goodwin, Grendahl, and Hooppaw. ABSENT: None. City staff members present were: City Administrator Lawell, City Clerk Gackstetter, City Attorney Dougherty, City Engineer Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director Bernstein, Police Captain Francis, Assistant City Administrator Grawe, Human Resources Manager Haas, Finance Director Hedberg, City Planner Lovelace, Deputy Fire Chief Nelson, Community Development Director Nordquist, Police Chief Rechtzigel, and Public Works Director Saam. Mayor Hamann-Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Everyone took part in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the agenda for tonight’s meeting, as presented. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. AUDIENCE Mayor Hamann-Roland asked if anyone was present to address the Council, at this time, on any item not on this meeting’s agenda. Mr. Ocdabio Chung, Mr. Todd Mutch, and Mr. Israel Aranda commented on projects in Apple Valley using H-2B immigrant workers who are hired as helpers but are used to replace skilled- trade construction employees. Discussion followed. The City Attorney advised this is not an item over which the City Council has been given legislative authority. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hamann-Roland asked if the Council or anyone in the audience wished to pull any item from the consent agenda. There were no requests. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving all items on the consent agenda with no exceptions. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota September 12, 2019 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the minutes of the regular meeting of August 22, 2019, as written. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving issuance of a lawful gambling exempt permit, by the State Gambling Control Board, to Apple Valley Sons of the American Legion, Squadron 1776, for use on November 11, 2019, and December 14, 2019, at the Apple Valley American Legion, 14521 Granada Drive, and waiving any waiting period for State approval. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving changes in club board members for Apple Valley American Legion, Post 1776, in connection with the On-Sale Club License and Special License for Sunday Liquor Sales at 14521 Granada Drive, naming James Harold Thompson as Sergeant at Arms, JoDene Strong as Gambling Manager, and Carla Tappainer as Membership Director, as described in the City Clerk’s memo. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, adopting Resolution No. 2019-101 approving 2019 Special Assessment Roll No. 661, for hearing purposes, in the total amount of $173,042.87 for delinquent utility charges, and setting the public hearing, at 7:00 p.m., on October 10, 2019. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, adopting Resolution No. 2019-102 approving 2019 Special Assessment Roll No. 662, for hearing purposes, in the total amount of $1,784.00 for delinquent false alarm charges, and setting the public hearing, at 7:00 p.m., on October 10, 2019. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, adopting Resolution No. 2019-103 approving 2019 Special Assessment Roll No. 663, for hearing purposes, in the total amount of $3,075.74 for delinquent tree removal charges, and setting the public hearing, at 7:00 p.m., on October 10, 2019. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the Truth-in-Taxation insert as attached to the Finance Director’s memo. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the reduction of financial guarantees for Quarry Ponds Fourth Addition from $15,000.00 to $5,000.00, Quarry Ponds Fifth Addition from $25,000.00 to $20,000.00 and the release of financial guarantee for Regent’s Point Second Addition, as listed in the Community Development Department Assistant’s memo. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving closure of Fontana Trail from 152nd Street to Fortino Street from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for Le Tour de Apple Valley bike ride on September 14, 2019, as described in the Public Works Director’s memo. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota September 12, 2019 Page 3 MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, directing staff and City Attorney to develop code amendments to address temporary refuse receptacles, as described in the Planner and Economic Development Specialist’s memo. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving issuance of a footing and foundation permit with Menard, Inc., for Menard’s Building, located at 6055 150th Street W., as described in the City Planner’s memo. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, adopting Resolution No. 2019-104 directing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for Project 2020-103, 2020 Micro Surfacing. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, adopting Resolution No. 2019-105 directing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for Project 2020-104, Garden View Drive Street and Utility Improvements. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, adopting Resolution No. 2019-106 directing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for Project 2020-105, 2020 Street Improvements. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, adopting Resolution No. 2019-107 rejecting USA Construction, LLC, as a responsible bidder for Project 1019-114, Family Aquatic Center Pool Shell Repair, because vendor was unable to meet the agreement requirements. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, adopting Resolution No. 2019-108 approving plans and specifications for Project 2019-114, Family Aquatic Center Pool Shell Repair, and authorizing advertising for receipt of bids, at 10:00 a.m., on October 11, 2019, via a posting on the City’s website and Quest Construction Data Network. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the Agreement for Design and Engineering Services for Project 2019-158, Apple Valley Family Aquatic Center Wet Play Area Improvements, with Webber Recreational Design, Inc., in the amount of $17,585.00, subject to approval of the agreement by the City Attorney, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the same. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, authorizing the purchase of equipment for Project 2019-158, Apple Valley Family Aquatic Center Wet Play Area Improvements, from Miracle Recreation Equipment Company through Webber Recreational Design, Inc., in the amount of $192,610.00, subject to modifications of the terms and conditions of the quote as deemed necessary by the City Attorney. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota September 12, 2019 Page 4 MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the Agreement for Installation of Aquatic Equipment for Project 2019-158, Apple Valley Family Aquatic Center Wet Play Area Improvements, with Lemmie Jones, LLC, in the amount of $121,405.00, subject to approval of the agreement by the City Attorney, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the same. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the Agreement for Residential Fall Clean-up Day (Furniture and Remodeling Debris Collection) with Lightning Disposal, Inc., and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the same. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the Agreement for Solid Waste and Recycling Collection and Disposal with Lightning Disposal, Inc., in the amount of $40,445.52, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the same. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving Change Order No. 1 to the agreement with Standard Contracting, Inc., for Project 2018-133, Cobblestone Manor (AL-P3) Stormwater Improvements for Alimagnet Lake, in the amount of an additional $133,594.75. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving Change Order No. 1 to the agreement with Sunram Construction, Inc., for Project 2018-134, Sunset Pond (AL-P8) Stormwater for Alimagnet Lake, in the amount of an additional $20,900.00. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving Change Order No. 1 to the agreement with B&B Commercial Coatings, LLC, with a reduction of $1,520.00; and accepting Project 2019-136, 2019 Hydrant Reconditioning and Painting, as complete and authorizing final payment in the amount of $26,980.00. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, accepting Project 2017-180, 2017 Garrett Avenue Raingardens, as complete and authorizing final payment on the agreement with Minnesota Native Landscapes, in the amount of $1,062.50. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the Memorandum of Agreement with Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Local No. 243, establishing the 2019 City maximum monthly contribution toward employee group health insurance, as attached to the Human Resources Manager’s memo, and authorizing the Mayor and staff to sign the same. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the personnel actions as listed in the Personnel Report dated September 12, 2019. Ayes - 4 - Nays - 0 - Abstain - 1 (Hooppaw). CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota September 12, 2019 Page 5 MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, to pay the claims and bills, check registers dated August 14, 2019, in the amount of $2,609.875.77; August 21, 2019, in the amount of $1,497,617.65, and August 28, 2019, in the amount of $1,129,588.57. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. END OF CONSENT AGENDA PROCLAIM VIVO KITCHEN AND THINK BANK BUSINESS LEADERS Mr. Nordquist provided background on Vivo Kitchen and Enjoy! and introduced Mr. Mark Thompson and Mr. David Peterson from Vivo Kitchen. Mr. Nordquist read the proclamation recognizing Vivo Kitchen as a business leader. He then presented the proclamation to Mr. Thompson. MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Hooppaw, proclaiming Vivo Kitchen a business leader in connection with Apple Valley’s 50th Golden Year celebration. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. Mr. Thompson said they are proud to accept the proclamation, appreciate the recognition, and most appreciate investing in the possibilities of Apple Valley. Mr. Peterson thanked the City Council for the recognition and said Apple Valley is a great community and they are proud to be part of it. Mr. Nordquist also presented the proclamation to Ms. Kay Shimek, former owner of Enjoy! Ms. Shimek said she was delighted to be included and thanked the Council. Mr. Nordquist then provided background on Think Bank. Mr. Nordquist read the proclamation recognizing Think Bank as a business leader. He then presented the proclamation to Think Bank representatives Ms. Sonya Busch, Mr. Kirk Muhlenbruck, Ms. Kiersten Lawson, Mr. Chris Barnick, and Mr. Chad DeCook. MOTION: of Bergman, seconded by Grendahl, proclaiming Think Bank a business leader in connection with Apple Valley’s 50th Golden Year celebration. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. Ms. Busch, said they are very excited to be here to receive this honor. She then read a statement from Think Bank CEO Paul Mackin congratulating the City on its 50th anniversary, thanking the Council for the recognition, and committing to continuing to focus on being a positive force in the community. Discussion followed. The Council thanked all the recipients for the great partnerships with the City of Apple Valley. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota September 12, 2019 Page 6 AMERESCO ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS Mr. Charles Grawe introduced John Neville from Ameresco. Mr. Neville gave a brief presentation on the facts and figures relating to various energy efficiency projects recently completed in Apple Valley by Ameresco. Mr. Neville then presented the City with an Award of Excellence plaque for distinction in sustainable energy reduction and environmental stewardship in 2019. Mayor Hamann-Roland called a recess at 7:55 p.m. Mayor Hamann-Roland resumed the meeting at 8:03 p.m. PROPOSED 2020 CITY BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX LEVY Mr. Hedberg presented the proposed 2020 budget and tax levy. He reviewed the budget timeline. Staff recommends the Council set the public budget meeting, formerly called the Truth-in-Taxation hearing, for December 12, 2019, which is a regularly scheduled Council meeting. He reviewed the budget considerations and significant impacts for 2020. The 2020 proposed budget requires a total levy of $27,381,000, an increase of $1,031,000 or 3.91% from 2019. He pointed out that once the preliminary budget is adopted, the total levy amount may decrease, but not increase. Discussion followed. Councilmember Goodwin reminded everyone that Apple Valley property owners do not receive special assessments for street reconstruction and maintenance projects. It is important to remember the City does not assess and is not falling behind on road maintenance. Mayor Hamann-Roland added that residents are also not assessed for utility reconstruction projects. Discussion continued. Councilmember Grendahl commented on a tweet sent by Dakota County Commissioner Joe Atkins that listed Apple Valley as having the second lowest property tax rate of Minnesota communities with 30,000 or more residents. She added that if Apple Valley did not include road maintenance in its tax levy, Apple Valley may be the lowest in the State. MOTION: of Hooppaw, seconded by Goodwin, adopting Resolution No. 2019-109 approving the proposed 2020 budgets, with total revenue of $78,506,569 and expenditures of $90,733,462, and approving the proposed tax levy collectible in 2020 of $27,381,000. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota September 12, 2019 Page 7 MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded Goodwin, setting a public budget meeting on the proposed 2020 budgets and tax levy at 7:00 p.m. on December 12, 2019. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ORDINANCE Mr. Lovelace gave the first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Sections 155.075 and 155.076, regulating uses in multiple-family residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment on September 4, 2019, did not receive any comments, and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment. MOTION: of Goodwin, seconded by Grendahl, waiving the procedure for a second reading and passing Ordinance No. 1065 amending City Code Sections 155.075 and 155.076, regulating uses in multiple-family residential zoning districts, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Goodwin noted that the ordinance increases the City’s flexibility on the type of units permitted within an M-7 zone. Vote was taken on the motion: Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. ORDINANCE AMENDING MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENTS & THERAPISTS Ms. Gackstetter gave the first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 123 of the City Code entitled “Massage Therapy Business and Massage Therapist Licenses”, regulating massage therapy establishments and therapists. The ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney’s office. She noted the ordinance was posted on the City’s website and no comments from the public have been received. MOTION: of Hooppaw, seconded by Bergman, waiving the procedure for a second reading and passing Ordinance No. 1066 amending Chapter 123 of the City Code entitled “Massage Therapy Business and Massage Therapist Licenses”, regulating massage therapy establishments and therapists. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Lawell expressed condolences to Dick Russell’s family. He then reminded everyone the Le Tour de Apple Valley community bike ride will be held this Saturday, September 14, 2019, starting at 10:00 a.m. in Kelley Park. CALENDAR OF UPCOMING EVENTS MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded by Bergman, approving the calendar of upcoming events as included in the Deputy City Clerk’s memo, and noting that each event listed is hereby deemed a Special Meeting of the City Council. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota September 12, 2019 Page 8 MOTION: of Grendahl, seconded Hooppaw, to adjourn. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 o’clock p.m. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Pamela J. Gackstetter Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk Approved by the Apple Valley City Council on . Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor I T E M: 4.B. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Change in Manager for D & D of Minnesota, I nc., d/b/a Famous Dave's B B Q S hack, 7593 147th S treet W., in Connection with On-Sale W ine and 3.2 Percent Malt L iquor L icenses S taff Contact: P amela J . Gackstetter, City Clerk Department / Division: City Clerk’s Office AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve the change in manager for D & D of Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a Famous Dave's BBQ Shack in connection with the On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Licenses, at 7593 147th Street W., naming Todd Robert Brier as General Manager. S UM M ARY: D & D of Minnesota, Inc., d/b/a Famous Dave's BBQ Shack has filed an application for a change in manager required in connection with its On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Licenses, at 7593 147th Street W. Mr. Todd Robert Brier is being named General Manager. A personal information form has been filed and the Police Department has conducted the necessary background investigation. T he information is on file should you wish to review it. B AC K G RO UND: City C ode Section 111.34 provides for C ity Council approval of such changes and approval of the change in manager is recommended. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A I T E M: 4.C. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Changes in Ownership and Managers for L S P Ventures, I nc., d/b/a Rascals A pple Valley Bar & Grill, 7721 147th S treet W., in Connection with On-Sale L iquor L icenses S taff Contact: P amela J . Gackstetter, City Clerk Department / Division: City Clerk’s Office AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve the changes in ownership and managers for LSP Ventures, Inc., d/b/a Rascals Apple Valley Bar & Grill in connection with the On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Special License for Sunday Liquor Sales, at 7721 147th Street W., naming MMMM Incorporated as an additional owner, Philip Roch Mahowald as G eneral Manger, Sean Robert Malewicki as Front House Manager, Travis Lin Ward Martinson as Catering & Operations, and Kimberly Kristin Kight as Bar Manager. S UM M ARY: LSP Ventures, Inc., d/b/a Rascals Apple Valley Bar & Grill has filed applications for changes in ownership and managers required in connection with its On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and Special License for Sunday Liquor Sales, at 7721 147th Street W. MMMM Incorporated is being added as an additional owner. Mr. Peter Stau and Ms. Lorrie Stau will continue as owners. In addition, Mr. Philip Rock Mahowald is being named General Manager, Mr. Sean Malewicki is being named Front House Manager, Ms. Travis Martinson is being named C atering & Operations, and Ms. Kimberly Kight is being named as Bar Manager. Personal information forms have been filed and the Police Department has conducted the necessary background investigations. T he information is on file should you wish to review it. B AC K G RO UND: City C ode Section 111.34 provides for C ity Council approval of such changes. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A I T E M: 4.D. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Release of F inancial Guarantee S taff Contact: J oan Murphy, Department A ssistant Department / Division: Community Development Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve release of financial guarantee. S UM M ARY: T he C ity holds numerous financial guarantees to ensure the installation of certain improvements in new developments, as well as to assure protection of natural resources. Staff review of the status of this development indicates that the following action is in order: 1.Apple Villa (Delegard) (PC16-18-PZB) LO C #SLC MMSP09271 Original Deposit on 9/19/17 $125,000.00 Reduced 11/29/18 to $75,000.00 Reduce now to $0.00 B AC K G RO UND: N/A B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A I T E M: 4.E. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Wetland Delineation for A pple Valley 2020 S treet and Utility Project S taff Contact: J essica Schaum, Natural Resources Coordinator Department / Division: Natural Resources Division AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve wetland delineation for the Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Project as summarized in the complete delineation (Type and Boundary/No Loss Application) report of J une 24, 2019. S UM M ARY: T he wetland delineation report for the Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Project was completed by Bolton and Menk on behalf of the City of Apple Valley on J une 24, 2019. Eight wetland locations including Basin ID# WVR-P111, P11, P11.1, P11.2, P112, BD-P7, PD-P13, and WVR-P130 were included for delineation concurrence, wetland type confirmation, and no-loss application. A site visit and field review was completed by D akota C ounty Soil and Water Conservation District staff. Based on the characteristics found on each site, it was determined that wetland boundaries as surveyed in the field and wetland types were correct and conform with the methods laid out in the 1987 Corps Manual, accompanying supplements and standards of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. B AC K G RO UND: A wetland delineation is required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WC A) when a project may adversely impact a wetland, primarily by draining or filling a portion of it. A Local Government Unit (LG U) is responsible for administering the program. T he C ity of Apple Valley is the LG U for projects taking place in Apple Valley. Since this wetland delineation is submitted by the City for a future C ity project, the Dakota C ounty Soil and Water C onservation District (SWC D) is assisting the City with the proper application review and reporting requirements. As a part of street and utility construction, the C ity's consultant located and found boundaries of eight wetlands occurring on various properties in the project area. A complete wetland delineation report was submitted J une 24, 2019 by Bolton and Menk, on behalf the C ity of Apple Valley. T he report depicts the location of wetland boundaries, a determination of wetland types, the methods used to determine boundaries, and the evidence supporting the location of wetland boundaries. Attached is a copy of the delineation report dated J une 24, 2019. Should the Mayor and City Council approve the wetland delineation, a Notice of Decision will be sent to all required parties as mandated in WC A by the Dakota C ounty SWC D staff. Based on the conditions found on each site the Dakota C ounty SWC D staff believes the wetland delineation conforms to standards found within the Army C orp Of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual, accompanying supplements, and the standards of the Minnesota Wetland C onservation Act. No additional comments were received by the Technical Evaluation Panel. B UD G E T I M PAC T: T his approval has no impact on the C ity budget. AT TAC HM E NT S : Report Type and Boundary/No Loss Application 2020 Street and Utility Project Apple Valley, Minnesota Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 1960 Premier Drive Mankato, MN 56001 P: 507-625-4171 F: 507-625-4177 June 24, 2019 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents 2020 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ N14.117293 Table Of Contents PART ONE: APPLICANT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 1 PART TWO: SITE LOCATION INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 1 PART THREE: GENERAL PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION ................................................................................ 1 PART FOUR: AQUATIC RESOURCE IMPACT SUMMARY .............................................................................. 2 PART FIVE: APPLICANT SIGNATURE ............................................................................................................ 2 ATTACHMENT A ........................................................................................................................................... 3 ATTACHMENT B ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Appendix FIGURE 1 – LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2 – HISTORICAL IMAGERY (INCIDENTAL STATUS) WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 1 2020 Street and Utility Improvements 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 ag ent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Brandon Anderson | City Engineer Mailing Address: 7100 147th Street W | Apple Valley, MN 55124 Phone: 952-953-2490 E-mail Address: banderson@ci.apple-valley.mn.us Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Brandon Bohks | Natural Resource Technician Mailing Address: 12224 Nicollet Ave | Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone: 952-890-0509 ext.3244 E-mail Address: brandonbo@bolton-menk.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Dakota City/Township: Apple Valley Parcel ID and/or Address: Apple Valley Basin ID# WVR-P111, P11, P11.1, P11.2, P112, BD-P7, BD-P13, and WVR-P130 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): S16, T115N, R20W Lat/Long (decimal degrees): Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 146 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 lis t 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 t he Corps of Engineers project number. N/A Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. Th e project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity i ncluding a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawi ngs showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and a quatic resource impacts. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 2020 Street and Utility Improvements 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 Dis trict (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 ar ea (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or 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 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Attachment B Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction. Identify the specific exemption or no-loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies: 8420.0105.D – Incidental Status Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the abo ve. Be specific and provide and refer to attachments and exhibits that support your contention. Applicants should refer to rules (e.g. WCA rules), guidance documents (e.g. BWSR guidance, Corps guidance letters/public notices), and permit conditions (e.g. Corps General Permit conditions) to determine the necessary information to support the application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of inf ormation to provide: The City of Apple Valley requested a wetland delineation on eight predetermined wetlands/storm water ponds as part of their future 2020 Street and Utility Improvement Plan. The project area includes Cimarron Road (from Palomino Drive to Pennock Avenue), Cimarron Circle, Yancey Court, Cimarron Court, Surrey Trail, Greylock Court, Shasta Court, Beaumont Court, and Sabra Court. The identified ponds will be subject to storm water improvements, most notably , the addition of curb and gutter. Historical imagery was used to determine the incidental status of the delineated aquatic resources. The aquatic resources under question are largely considered open water with deep water habitat regimes, and are generally located in medium to large depressions surrounded entirely by wood vegetation. These types of depressions are easily identified when reviewing historic aerial photographs. Based on the 1970 historical photograph (Figure 2a/Figure 2b), wetlands (W3, W4, and W7) should be considered incidental, due to landscape position and an enclosed tree canopy. Wetland 2a was constructed, however it was constructed for the purpose of wetland mitigation, therefore is not considered incidental. BWSR Forms 11-25-09 Page 1 of 2 Appendix 2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 2019 Figure 1: Location Map Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\Permit\117293_Figure 1_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/24/2019 2:38:12 PMLegend !I Study Area Apple Valley City Limits Road Centerline 0 5,000FeetSource:MnGeo (2017), MnDOT ?éA@ ?éA@ S| S| %&c( %&c( %&d(Cliff Road W7: Propos ed Incidental Storm Pond0.05 ac W1: Natural WetlandType 4/Deep Marsh0.19 ac W2a: Na tural Wetla ndType 5/Open Water0.54 ac W2b: Constructed PondMitigation Site0.05 acW3: Propos ed Incidental Storm Pond0.24 ac Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\Permit\117293_Figure 2a_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/24/2019 2:22:35 PM2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 20 19 Figure 2a: Historical Imagery (Incidental Status) Legend !I Stu dy A rea Natural Wetla nd In ciden ta l We tla nd 0 200FeetSource: FSA Imagery (1970) W4: Propos ed Incidental Type 5/Open Water0.16 ac W5: Natural WetlandType 3/Shallow Marsh1.28 ac Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\Permit\117293_Figure 2b_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/24/2019 1:35:23 PM2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 20 19 Figure 2b: Historical Imagery (Incidental Status) W6: Natural WetlandType 5/Open Water0.64 acLegend!I Study Area Natural Wetland Incidental Wetland 0 200FeetSource: FSA (1970) Wetland Delineation Report 2020 Street and Utility Project Apple Valley,Minnesota Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 1960 Premier Drive Mankato, MN 56001 P: 507-625-4171 F: 507-625-4177 June 24, 2019 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 II. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 1 III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 2 IV. CLIMATE DATA ....................................................................................................................... 3 V. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 4 VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 5 Tables WETLAND SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibits MONTHLY TEMPERATURE RANGE ................................................................................................... 3 ANTECEDENT PRECIPITATION CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 3 Appendix Exhibit A: Site Location Map Exhibit B: Site Topography – 2 Foot LiDAR Contours Exhibit C: National Wetlands Inventory Exhibit D: Public Waters Inventory Exhibit E: Dakota County Soil Survey Exhibit F: Delineated Aquatic Resources Exhibit G: Delineation Data Sheets Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. INTRODUCTION 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Apple Valley requested a wetland delineation on eight selected ponds as part of their future 2020 Street and Utility Improvement Plan. The project area includes Cimarron Road (from Palomino Drive to Pennock Avenue), Cimarron Circle, Yancey Court, Cimarron Court, Surrey Trail, Greylock Court, Shasta Court, Beaumont Court, and Sabra Court. The total project length is approximately 10,000 feet. The identified ponds will be subject to storm water improvements, most notably, the addition of curb and gutter. The study area (Exhibit A) is located on the very northwest corner of the Apple Valley city limits. This area under investigation is highly urbanized, consisting entirely of housing and apartment complexes. The aquatic resources delineated are a combination of historic wetlands and wetlands constructed in upland to function as storm water ponds. The project is found in Section 16 in Township 115 North of Range 20 West. II. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY The wetland boundaries were delineated and staked in the field on May 29, 2019, using methods described in the “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0)”. Wetlands identified were classified using “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979)”, “Wetlands of the United States (United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39, 1971 edition)” and “Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin” (Eggers and Reed Third Edition). Subsequently, the three mandatory technical criteria for wetland determinations are as follows: Hydrophytic Vegetation. A hydrophytic plant community is present when the dominant plant species present can endure prolonged inundation and/or soil saturation during the growing season. A plant’s Wetland Indicator Status is determined using the 2016 National Wetland Plant List for Minnesota, published by the Army Corp of Engineers. Hydric Soils. A hydric soil is defined as a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season (the portion of the year when there is above ground growth and development of vascular plants and/or soil temperature at 12 inches below the soil surface is above 41 degrees Fahrenheit or higher) to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Wetland Hydrology. An area has wetland hydrology if it experiences 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding or a water table within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season at a minimum frequency of five out of ten years. This is determined by using both primary and secondary Wetland Hydrology indicators. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Page 2 III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Prior to conducting a field investigation of this site, Exhibits A through E were used to complete a preliminary evaluation. The data gathered during the preliminary investigation was used as described below: Exhibit A is a location map of the study area. Exhibits B is an aerial photo with topographic information overlaid on it. This provides information regarding topography of the site, helping to identify areas that may have wetland characteristics. Exhibit C is the National Wetlands Inventory of the site and surrounding properties. This information is used to complete a preliminary investigation of the wetlands that may or may not exist on the site. Exhibit D is used to identify waters that are regulated by the DNR. This exhibit shows where there are DNR public waters relative to the site. Exhibit E is the Dakota County Soil Survey and is used to identify hydric soils that may lie within the study area. Exhibit F is the site map showing the delineated aquatic resources. Exhibit G includes the wetland delineation data sheets. Exhibits F and G were prepared from the information gathered at the site. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CLIMATE DATA 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Page 3 IV. CLIMATE DATA The monthly temperature table below shows the average high and low temperatures for the three months prior to the field delineation, along with the historical averages for these months. The average monthly highs were well below the historic averages for the past three months, while the average monthly lows have been slightly below the historic averages over the past two months. MONTHLY TEMPERATURE RANGE Antecedent precipitation was evaluated using a combination of the NRCS Method and the Rolling Totals Method. The analysis found that precipitation totals have been above normal for the months of April and May. ANTECEDENT PRECIPITATION CONDITIONS This climatic data was gathered using the Climatology Working Group Website, http://climate.umn.edu/ and the National Weather Service Forecast Office, http://w2.weather.gov/climate/. The information for the investigation was retrieved from the WETS Station: Dakota-Lebanon-Apple Valley (County– Township-City). 0 20 40 60 80 MarAprilMayAvg Monthly High Avg Monthly Low Avg (Hist) High Avg (Hist) Low Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FINDINGS 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Page 4 V. FINDINGS On June 11th of 2019 a field investigation was performed to evaluate and verify the existence and boundary of any aquatic resources located within the proposed study corridor. The field investigation found that a total of 8 wetlands were found to exist within the study corridor. The following describes the aquatic resources identified, together with a brief description of wetland types and observations made during the field investigation. The City of Apple Valley predetermined which wetland/storm ponds were to be delineated for their 2020 Street and Utility Improvement Project. The study area was constructed to encompass all aquatic resources identified by the city, therefore other aquatic resources may be present but will not be affected by the 2020 improvements. Wetland 1 (W1): NWI Cowardin: PUBF PWI (Hydro) ID: None Field Observation Circular 39: Type 4 Field Observation Eggers and Reed: Deep Marsh Soil Mapping Unit(s): Urban land-Kingsley complex Wetland 1 is located on the west side of Pennock Avenue along the northern extent of the study area. Wetland 1 is an open water wetland surrounded entirely by woody vegetation. This wetland does function as a retention pond, however based on historic aerial imagery (Figure 2a) wetland 1 is considered a natural wetland. The field investigation found that wetland (W1) has met all three wetland indicators and should be considered a palustrine unconsolidated bottom intermittently exposed wetland (PUBG). One transect and several sample points were taken to determine the wetland boundary. Soils, hydrology and topography aided in determining the wetland boundary. At the wetland pit location, the plant community is dominated by reed canary grass. At the upland pit location, the plant community is dominated by box elder and ground ivy. Only the wetland plant community was considered hydrophytic. Soils at the wetland pit location were dug to a depth of 10-inches and met hydric soil indicators F6 – Redox Dark Surface and F7 – Depleted Dark Surface. Soils at the upland pit location were dug to 17-inches and failed to meet any hydric soil indicators. Soils at the wetland pit location were saturated at the surface, with the water table present within 4- inches of the soil surface. Soils at the wetland pit location also met secondary hydrology indicators D2 – Geomorphic Position, and D5 – FAC Neutral Test. Soils at the upland pit location failed to meet any wetland hydrology indicators. The determining factor for this delineation was the lack of all three wetland indicators at the upland pit location. The boundary was determined by following the topographic breaks and reed canary grass boundaries. Wetland 2 (W2a), (W2b): NWI Cowardin: PUBGx PWI (Hydro) ID: None Field Observation Circular 39: Type 3/5 Field Observation Eggers and Reed: Shallow Marsh/Open Water Soil Mapping Unit(s): Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Wetland 2 consists of two basins connected through subsurface drainage. Wetland 2a is a larger open water wetland surrounded entirely by woody vegetation. This wetland does function as a retention pond, however based on historical aerial imagery (Figure 2a) wetland 2a is considered a Wetland 1 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FINDINGS 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Page 5 natural wetland. Wetland 2b is small constructed detention pond (Figure 2b) that is functioning as a shallow marsh wetland. A narrow berm was constructed between the two basins, which is where the upland soil boring was performed. The field investigation found that wetland (W2) has met all three wetland indicators and should be considered a palustrine unconsolidated bottom permanently flooded wetland (PUBH) and a palustrine emergent persistent seasonally flooded wetland (PEM1C). Two transects and several sample points were taken to determine the wetland boundary. Soils, hydrology and topography aided in determining the wetland boundary. At the wetland pit locations, the plant communities are dominated by reed canary grass, salix species, and common buckthorn. At the upland pit location, the plant community is dominated by reed canary grass. All plant communities were considered hydrophytic. Soils at wetland pit location (W2a) were dug to a depth of 14-inches and met hydric soil indicator F3 – Depleted Matrix. Soils at wetland pit location (W2b) were dug to a depth of 16-inches and met hydric soil indicator A11 – Depleted Below Dark Surface. Soils at the upland pit location were dug to 18-inches and failed to meet any hydric soil indicators. Soils at wetland pit location (W2a) were saturated at the depth of 2-inches, with the water table present within 5-inches of the soil surface. Soils at wetland pit location (W2b) were saturated at the surface, with surface water present at the depth of 0.5-inches. Soils at the wetland pit location also met secondary hydrology indicators D2 and D5. Soils at the upland pit location failed to meet any of the wetland hydrology indicaotrs. The determining factor for this delineation was the lack of hydric soils and wetland hydrology at the upland pit location. The boundary was determined by following the topographic breaks and reed canary grass boundaries. Wetland 3 (W3): NWI Cowardin: None PWI (Hydro) ID: None Field Observation Circular 39: Type 1 Field Observation Eggers and Reed: Seasonally Flooded Basin Soil Mapping Unit(s): Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Wetland 3 is located on the north side of the cul-de-sac at the end of Greylock Court. Wetland 3 is a constructed basin (Figure 2a) designed to function as a detention pond. The field investigation found that wetland (W3) has met all three wetland indicators and should be considered a palustrine emergent temporarily flooded wetland (PEMA). One transect and several sample points were taken to determine the wetland boundary. Soils, hydrology and topography aided in determining the wetland boundary. At the wetland pit location, the plant community is dominated by bur oak. At the upland pit location, the plant community is dominated by: green ash, black walnut, common elderberry, common buckthorn, garlic mustard, and ground ivy. The vegetation located at the wetland pit should be considered naturally problematic. Although bur oaks carry a wetland indicator status of FACU, the absence of all understory vegetation caused by frequent flooding and with the additional presence of other hydrology indicators, it is my professional judgement that this depression should be considered wetland without the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland 2a Wetland 3 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FINDINGS 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Page 6 Soils at the wetland pit location were dug to a depth of 12-inches and met hydric soil A11. Soils at the upland pit location were dug to a depth of 10-inches, when a restrictive layer was observed. Based on landscape position, it is assumed that hydric soils are absent at the upland pit location. Soils at the wetland pit location were saturated at the surface, with the water table present within 8- inches of the soil surface. Soils at the wetland pit location also met the following primary indicators: B1 – Water Marks, B8 – Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface, B9 – Water-Stained Leaves. Soils at the wetland pit location also met secondary hydrology indicators D2 and D5. Soils at the upland pit location failed to meet any wetland hydrology indicators. The determining factor for this delineation was the lack of all three wetland indicators at the upland pit location. The boundary was determined by following the topographic breaks. Wetland 4 (W4): NWI Cowardin: None PWI (Hydro) ID: None Field Observation Circular 39: Type 5 Field Observation Eggers and Reed: Open Water Soil Mapping Unit(s): Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Wetland 4 is located at the intersection of Palomino Drive and Pennock Avenue, on the far east side of the study area. Wetland 4 is a small open water wetland that was constructed (Figure 2b) to function as a retention pond. The field investigation found that wetland (W4) has met all three wetland indicators and should be considered a PUBG wetland. One transect and several sample points were taken to determine the wetland boundary. Soils, hydrology and topography aided in determining the wetland boundary. At the wetland pit location, the plant community is dominated by common buckthorn. At the upland pit location, the plant community is dominated by bur oak and common buckthorn. All plant communities were considered hydrophytic. Soils at the wetland pit location were dug to a depth of 12-inches and met hydric soil indicators A3 Black Histic. Soils at the upland pit location were dug to 18-inches and failed to meet any hydric soil indicators. Soils at the wetland pit location were saturated at the surface, with surface water present at the depth of 3-inches. Soils at the wetland pit location also met secondary hydrology indicator D2. Soils at the upland pit location failed to meet any wetland hydrology indicators. The determining factor for this delineation was the lack of hydric soils and wetland hydrology at the upland pit location. The boundary was determined by following the topographic breaks. Wetland 5 (W5): NWI Cowardin: PEM1C PWI (Hydro) ID: None Field Observation Circular 39: Type 3 Field Observation Eggers and Reed: Shallow Marsh Soil Mapping Unit(s): Seelyville muck Wetland 5 is located on the north side of the cul-de-sac at the end of Shasta Court. This is a naturally historic wetland (Figure 2b), although it is also functioning as a retention pond to treat storm water. The field investigation found that wetland (W5) has met all three wetland indicators and should be considered a PEM1C wetland. One transect and several sample points were taken to determine the wetland boundary. Soils, hydrology and topography aided in determining the wetland boundary. At the wetland pit location, the plant community is dominated by common buckthorn. At the upland pit location, the plant community is dominated by eastern cottonwood, bur oak, common buckthorn, Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FINDINGS 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Page 7 honey suckle, Virginia creeper, and white snake root. Only the wetland plant community is considered hydrophytic. Soils at the wetland pit location were dug to a depth of 12-inches and met hydric soil indicators A3. Soils at the upland pit location were dug to 16-inches and failed to meet any hydric soil indicators. Soils at the wetland pit location were saturated at the surface, with the surface water present at the depth of 3-inches. Soils at the wetland pit location also met secondary hydrology indicator D2. Soils at the upland pit location failed to meet any wetland hydrology indicators. The determining factor for this delineation was the lack all three wetland indicators at the upland pit location. The boundary was determined by following the topographic breaks and reed canary grass boundaries. Wetland 6 (W6): NWI Cowardin: PABGx PWI (Hydro) ID: None Field Observation Circular 39: Type 5 Field Observation Eggers and Reed: Open Water Soil Mapping Unit(s): Urban land-Kingsley complex Wetland 6 is located on the northeast side of the cul-de-sac at the end of Lower 129th Court. This is a naturally historic wetland (Figure 2b), although it is also functioning as a retention pond to treat storm water. The field investigation found that wetland (W6) has met all three wetland indicators and should be considered a PUBG wetland. One transect and several sample points were taken to determine the wetland boundary. Soils, hydrology and topography aided in determining the wetland boundary. At the wetland pit location, the plant community is dominated by box elder, green ash, and American elm. At the upland pit location, the plant community is dominated by box elder, bur oak, common buckthorn, and ground ivy. Only the wetland plant community is considered hydrophytic. Soils at the wetland pit location were dug to a depth of 20-inches and met hydric soil indicators A12 – Thick Dark Surface. Soils at the upland pit location were dug to 15-inches and failed to meet any hydric soil indicators. Soils at the wetland pit location were saturated at the surface, with surface water present at the depth of 0.5-inches. Soils at the wetland pit location also met secondary hydrology indicator D2. Soils at the upland pit location failed to meet any wetland hydrology indicators. The determining factor for this delineation was the lack of all three wetland indicators at the upland pit location. The boundary was determined by following the topographic breaks. Wetland 7 (W7): NWI Cowardin: PABGx PWI (Hydro) ID: None Field Observation Circular 39: Type 4 Field Observation Eggers and Reed: Deep Marsh Soil Mapping Unit(s): Urban land-Kingsley complex Wetland 7 is a small basin located on the north side of Palomino East Apartments. According to aerial imagery this pond was constructed (Figure 2a) to treat storm water, most likely caused by the construction of the apartment complex. The field investigation found that wetland (W7) has met all three wetland indicators and should be considered a PUBG wetland. One transect and several sample points were taken to determine the wetland boundary. Soils, hydrology and topography aided in determining the wetland boundary. At the wetland pit location, the plant community is dominated by reed canary grass and carex. At the upland pit location, the plant community is dominated by bur oak, American linden, and Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CONCLUSION 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 Page 8 Kentucky bluegrass. Only the wetland plant community is considered hydrophytic. Soils at the wetland pit location were dug to a depth of 10-inches and met hydric soil indicators F3. Soils at the upland pit location were dug to 10- inches and failed to meet any hydric soil indicators. Soils at the wetland pit location were saturated at the surface, with the water table present within 4-inches of the soil surface. Soils at the wetland pit location also met secondary hydrology indicator D2 and D5. Soils at the upland pit location failed to meet any wetland hydrology indicators. The determining factor for this delineation was the lack of all three wetland indicators at the upland pit location. The boundary was determined by following the topographic breaks. VI. CONCLUSION This delineation was performed on June 11th, 2019. The boundaries of the wetlands were staked in the field with three foot “Wetland Delineation” pin flags. The location of the pin flags were surveyed by Bolton & Menk, Inc. using a Trimble Geo-XH GPS Data Collector and tied to the Dakota County coordinate system. The delineated limits are believed to be the upper limits of where all three of the required wetland criteria were present. Bolton & Menk, Inc., was asked to determine the boundaries of those jurisdictional wetlands that exist upon this property as defined by the Wetland Conservation Act. Based upon all available information, the existing conditions that currently prevail, and the on-site investigation, evidence supports the presence of eight wetland within the boundaries of the study corridor. WETLAND SUMMARY Id # Wetland Type^ Size* W1 Type 4 0.19 ac W2a Type 5 0.54 ac W2b Type 3 0.05 ac W3 Type 1 0.24 ac W4 Type 5 0.16 ac W5 Type 3 1.28 ac W6 Type 5 0.64 ac W7 Type 4 0.05 ac *size measured within study area. ^wetland type within study area Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. Brandon Bohks Certified Wetland Delineator in Training, No. 5231 Wetland 7 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. APPENDIX 2020 Street and Utility Improvements | N14.117293 APPENDIX 2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 2019 Exhibit A: Location Map Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\117293_A_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/21/2019 10:23:31 AMLegend !I Study Area Apple Valley City Limits Road Centerline 0 5,000FeetSource:MnGeo (2017), MnDOT ?éA@ ?éA@ S| S| %&c( %&c( %&d(Cliff Road 1030 106010409901050 1 0 2 0 9809 7 0 1010100010709601 0 8 01 0909501100 111010301 0 3 0 1030102010901030 10301 0 1 0 9909509601050 980960 1030104010001060 10001090 1 0 6 0 1040100010301040 10201 0 3 0108010 4 0 107010101010960 1040 11 0 0 1040108010101030960 107011001040 10501 0 4 0 9509 9 0 10401 0 7 0 108010801 0 2 0 1020 10809901020980 10709609701040108010401 0 6 0100010 60 1 0 7 0 1 0 6 0 1080 1060 1 0 7 010401020 10001080105010401090 1 0 4 0 1090 1 1 1 0 1 0 7 0 1010 10309701 0 5 0 10401020 10301000102010 8 0 990 10009501090 1100 10101070 1050 1070 10701050 10601 0 8 0 10801080 104010201070 10401060102010301 0 8 0 10301010980960 1040 1040 1 0 5 0 10201090 2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 2019 Exhibit B: 2-Foot LiDAR Contours Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\117293_B_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/21/2019 10:22:12 AMLegend !IStudy Area Elevation Major Contours Intermediate Contours 0 500FeetSource:MnGeo (2017), Dakota County PUBGxPABGx PEM1C PUBGxPEM1A PFO1A PUBGx PABGx PEM1C PEM1A PUBGx PUBGx PUBGx PEM1C PUBF PFO1A PUBGx PUBGx PEM1C PUBGx PUBGx PEM1A 2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 2019 Exhibit C: National Wetland Inventory Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\117293_C_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/21/2019 10:21:18 AMLegend !I Study Area NWI Wetlands 0 500FeetSource:MnGeo (2017), MNDNR 2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 2019 Exhibit D: Public Water Inventory Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\117293_D_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/21/2019 10:15:48 AMLegend !IStudy Area PWI Basin 0 700FeetSource:MnGeo (2017), MNDNR 861C 896E 861C 895C 896E 342E 415C 888D 1039 895B 150B 896E 454C 895C 895C 344 449B 895C W 861C W 896E 896E 895C W 540 895C 896E 1824 1824 539 895C W 344 1816896E 155C 896E 888C 1816 896E 49B 1816 2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 2019 Exhibit E: Dakota County Soil Survey Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\117293_E_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/21/2019 10:20:42 AMLegend !IStudy Area Non-Hydric Soils Hydric Soils 0 500FeetSource:MnGeo (2017), Dakota County Symbol Name Slopes Hydric Rating Hydric Class344Quam silt loam 0-2%Yes 95454CMahtomedi loamy sand 8-15%No 0540Seelyeville muck 0-2%Yes 100861CUrban land-Kingsley complex 3-15%No 0888DKingsley-Lester complex 12-18%No 0895CKingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex 8-15%No 0896EKingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex 15-25%No 01039Urban land N/A No 01824Quam silt loam, ponded 0-2%Yes 100*soils may contain hydric inclusions Soils Legend Wetland 1 Wetland 2a Wetland 2b Wetland 7 Wetland 4 Wetland 3Wetland 5 Wetland 6 2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 2019 Exhibit F1: Delineated Aquatic Resources (Overview)Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\117293_F1_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/21/2019 10:15:37 AMLegend !IStudy Area Delineated Wetland Type 1 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 0 600FeetSource: MnGeo (2017) The City of Apple Valley identified 8 wetland/stormwater basins to be delineated for their 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Project. > > > > > > > > > > !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( W1-B W1-A W2a-A W2a-B W2b-AW7: Type 4Deep Marsh0.05 ac W7-B W3-A W3-B W1: Type 4Deep Marsh0.19 ac W2a: Type 5Open Water0.54 ac W2b: Type 3Shallow Marsh0.05 acW7-A W3: Type 1Seasonally Flooded Basin0.24 ac Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\117293_F2_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/24/2019 2:51:13 PM2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 20 19 Exhibit F2: Delineated Aquatic Resources Legend !I Study Area Type 1 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 !(Soil Boring Transect Draiange Feature >Culvert 0 100FeetSource:MnGeo (2017) > > > !( !( !(!( W4-A W4-B W5-A W5-B W4: Type 5Open Water0.16 ac W5: Type 3Shallow Marsh1.28 ac Map Document: H:\APVA\N14117293\GIS\ESRI\Wetland\Maps\117293_F3_8x11.mxd | Date Saved: 6/24/2019 11:54:27 AM2020 Street and Utility Improvements June, 20 19 Exhibit F3: Delineated Aquatic Resources !( !(> > > > W6-A W6-B W6: Type 5Open Water0.64 ac Legend !I Study Area Type 1 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 !(Soil Boring Transect Draiange Feature >Culvert 0 100FeetSource:MnGeo (2017) , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators X Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) FACW 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes 30 30 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index (B/A):2.00 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Phalaris arundinacea (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 60 0 0 0 (A) 0 0 0 30 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 30 0 60 0 0 =Total Cover 100% 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Total number of dominant species across all strata:1 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status Dominant Species Yes Yes Yes Yes VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:PUBF , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Urban land-Kinglsey complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W1-A Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Basin/Storm Pond City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):0-2 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Concave %% 90 5 5 X X Yes X X X X Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-10 EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam 10YR 5/1 Redox Features Loc** M M Type* C D Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W1-A Color (moist) 7.5YR 4/610YR 2/1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 10 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Yes Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 4 Surface Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?No Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50% Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) FACU FACU FACU FACW 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes No No No 108 90 10 5 3 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Ageratina altissima Arctium minus Phalaris arundinacea Prevalence Index (B/A):3.54 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Glechoma hederacea (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 666 0 420 240 (A) 80 105 0 188 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 3 0 6 0 0 =Total Cover 50% 80 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Total number of dominant species across all strata:2 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status FAC Dominant Species No No No No VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 80 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1Acer negundo Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Urban land-Kinglsey complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W1-B Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Backslope City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):20-30 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Convex %% 100 No Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-17 EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silt Loam Redox Features Loc**Type* Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W1-B Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 17 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) FACW FACW 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes No 75 70 5 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Onoclea sensibilis Prevalence Index (B/A):2.26 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Phalaris arundinacea (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 260 0 0 90 (A) 30 0 0 115 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 85 0 170 0 30 =Total Cover 30Rhamnus cathartica 100% 10 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Yes FAC Total number of dominant species across all strata:3 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status FACW Dominant Species Yes Yes Yes Yes VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 10 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3Salix species Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:PUBGx , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W2a-A Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Basin/Storm Pond City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):0-2 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Concave %% 80 20 100 X Yes X X X X Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-5 5-14+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam Redox Features Loc** M Type* C Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W2a-A Color (moist) 7.5YR 4/610YR 5/1 10YR 6/1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 14 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Yes Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 5 2 Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) No FACW FACW FACU FACU FACU 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes No No No 110 65 20 10 10 5 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Glechoma hederacea Urtica dioica Salidago canadensis Cirsium arvense Prevalence Index (B/A):2.64 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Phalaris arundinacea (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 290 0 140 0 (A) 0 35 0 110 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 75 0 150 0 0 =Total Cover 100% 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Total number of dominant species across all strata:1 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status Dominant Species No Yes No No VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W2a-B Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Terrace City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):1-4 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Linear %% 100 No Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-18+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silt Loam Redox Features Loc**Type* Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W2a-B Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 18 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators X Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) FACW 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes 40 40 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index (B/A):2.00 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Phalaris arundinacea (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 80 0 0 0 (A) 0 0 0 40 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 40 0 80 0 0 =Total Cover 100% 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Total number of dominant species across all strata:1 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status Dominant Species Yes Yes Yes Yes VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W2b-A Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Basin/Storm Pond City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):0-2 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Concave %% 100 90 10 X Yes X X X X X Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-7 7-16+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam 7.5YR 4/6 Redox Features Loc** M Type* C Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W2b-A Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 16 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Yes Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 0.5 Surface Surface Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks)X *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic It appears mature bur oaks were well established before it was functioning as a storm water pond. Hydology indicators support the area being inundated in the past. It is my propfessional judgement this area is currently functioning as wetland even with the presense of FACU vegetation. Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50% Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover 0 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index (B/A):4.00 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 320 0 320 0 (A) 0 80 0 80 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 0 0 0 0 0 =Total Cover 0% 80 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Total number of dominant species across all strata:1 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status FACU Dominant Species Yes Yes Yes Yes VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 80 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0Quercus macrocarpa Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?No NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation X Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W3-A Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Basin/Storm Pond City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):0-2 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Concave %% 100 90 10 X Yes X X X X X X Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-5 5-12+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam 7.5YR 4/6 Redox Features Loc** M Type* C Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W3-A Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 12 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Yes Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 8 Surface Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Slope (%):7-10 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Convex City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W3-B Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Backslope City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation No No No VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 45 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2Fraxinus pennsylvanica Yes Indicator Status FACW FACU Dominant Species No Juglans nigra Sambucus canadensis 33% 80 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet 35 Yes FACU Total number of dominant species across all strata:6 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes Rhamnus cathartica 20 15 FAC 35 =Total Cover Yes 150 0 215 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 50 0 100 0 Prevalence Index (B/A):3.47 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Alliaria petiolate (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 745 0 600 45 (A) 15 70 20 5 5 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Glechoma hederacea Arctium minus Laportea canadensis 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes Yes No No 100 FACU FACU FACU FACW Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?No Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50% Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) %% 100 No Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No Saturation Present? Remarks *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 10 inches, when a restrictive layer was observed. Based on landscape position, it is assumed that hydric soils are absent at the upland pit location. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Rock 10 Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W3-B Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Redox Features Loc**Type*Texture Silt Loam Depth (inches) 0-10 EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) FAC FACW 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes No 14 10 4 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Phalaris arundinacea Prevalence Index (B/A):2.88 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Rhamnus cathartica (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 98 0 0 90 (A) 30 0 0 34 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 4 0 8 0 20 =Total Cover 20Rhamnus cathartica 100% 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Yes FAC Total number of dominant species across all strata:2 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status Dominant Species Yes Yes Yes Yes VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W4-A Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Basin/Storm Pond City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):0-2 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Concave %% 100 X Yes X X X X Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-12+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Muck Redox Features Loc**Type* Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W4-A Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 12 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Yes Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 3 Surface Surface Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) FAC 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes 12 12 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index (B/A):3.44 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Rhamnus cathartica (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 351 0 180 171 (A) 57 45 0 102 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 0 0 0 0 45 =Total Cover 45Rhamnus cathartica 67% 45 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Yes FAC Total number of dominant species across all strata:3 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status FACU Dominant Species No Yes No No VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 45 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2Quercus macrocarpa Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W4-B Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Backslope City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):15-20 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Convex %% 100 100 No Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-8 8-18+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silt Loam Silt Loam Redox Features Loc**Type* Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W4-B Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 3/2 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 18 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) FAC FACW 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes No 14 10 4 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Phalaris arundinacea Prevalence Index (B/A):2.88 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Rhamnus cathartica (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 98 0 0 90 (A) 30 0 0 34 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 4 0 8 0 20 =Total Cover 20Rhamnus cathartica 100% 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Yes FAC Total number of dominant species across all strata:2 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Indicator Status Dominant Species Yes Yes Yes Yes VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:PEM1C , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Seelyville muck Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W5-A Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Basin/Storm Pond City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):0-2 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Concave %% 100 X Yes X X X X Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-12+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Muck Redox Features Loc**Type* Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W5-A Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 12 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Yes Yes Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 3 Surface Surface Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Slope (%):20-25 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Convex City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W5-B Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Backslope City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation No No No VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 50 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2Populus deltoides Yes Indicator Status FAC FACU Dominant Species No Quercus macrocarpa Rhamnus cathartica 33% 80 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet 30 Yes FAC Total number of dominant species across all strata:6 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes Lonicera tatarica 20 10 FACU 30 =Total Cover Yes 85 0 160 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 0 0 0 0 Prevalence Index (B/A):3.53 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Parthenocissus quinquefolia (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 565 0 340 225 (A) 75 30 15 5 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Ageratina altissima Rhamnus cathartica 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes Yes No 50 FACU FAC FACU Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?No Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50% Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) %% 100 No Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No Saturation Present? Remarks *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 16 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W5-B Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 Redox Features Loc**Type*Texture Silt Loam Silt Loam Depth (inches) 0-16+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover 0 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index (B/A):2.47 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 235 0 0 135 (A) 45 0 0 95 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 50 0 100 0 0 =Total Cover Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ulmus americana 100% 95 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet 30 20 Total number of dominant species across all strata:3 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes Yes Indicator Status FAC FACW FACW Dominant Species Yes Yes Yes Yes VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 45 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3Acer negundo Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:PABGx , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Urban land-kingsley complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W6-A Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Basin/Storm Pond City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):0-2 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Concave %% 100 95 5 X Yes X X X X Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-14 14-20+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silty Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam 7.5YR 4/1 Redox Features Loc** M Type* C Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W6-A Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 10YR 4/1 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 20 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Yes Yes Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 0.5 Surface Surface Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?No Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50% Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) FACU FACW 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes No 77 70 7 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Fraxinus pennsylvanica Prevalence Index (B/A):3.18 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Glechoma hederacea (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 689 0 440 105 (A) 35 110 0 217 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 72 0 144 0FACU FAC 40 =Total Cover No NoSambucus canadensis Acer negundo 30 5 5 Quercus macrocarpa Rhamnus cathartica 50% 100 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet 35 Yes FAC Total number of dominant species across all strata:4 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes Indicator Status FACW FACU Dominant Species No No No No VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 65 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2Acer negundo Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Urban land-Kingsley complex Are vegetation City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W6-B Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Backslope City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota Slope (%):20-25 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Convex %% 100 100 No Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No Saturation Present? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depth (inches) 0-3 3-15+ EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Texture Silt Loam Silt Loam Redox Features Loc**Type* Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W6-B Color (moist) 10YR 3/1 10YR 3/4 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 15 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Remarks , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Slope (%):0-2 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Concave City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/13/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W7-A Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Basin/Storm Pond City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:PUBGx , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex Are vegetation Yes Yes Yes VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:1 Indicator Status Dominant Species Yes 100% 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet Total number of dominant species across all strata:1 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 =Total Cover 0 0 60 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 60 0 120 0 Prevalence Index (B/A):2.00 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Phalaris arundinacea (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 120 0 0 0 (A) 0 30 30 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Carex speceis 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes Yes 60 FACW FACW Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators X Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50%X X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) %% 75 25 X Yes X X X X Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?Yes Saturation Present? Remarks *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 10 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Yes Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 4 Surface Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W7-A Color (moist) 7.5YR 4/610YR 5/1 Redox Features Loc** M Type* C Texture Silty Clay Loam Depth (inches) 0-10 EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) , soils , soils ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) 1 2 Slope (%):8-12 Latitude:Longitude:Datum: Section, Township, Range:S16, T115N, R20W Local Relief (concave, convex, none):Convex City/County: EXHIBIT G: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM (Midwest Region) 6/11/2019Sampling Date: Sample Point:W7-B Landforms (hillside, terrace, etc.):Backslope City of Apple Valley State:MN Investigator(s): Apple Valley 2020 Utility Improvements Brandon Bohks Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Dakota SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of year?Yes (If no, explain in remarks) significantly disturbed?Are normal circumstances present?Yes NWI Classification:None , or hydrology , or hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)naturally problematic?Are vegetation Soil Map Unit Name:Urban land-Kinglsey complex Are vegetation No No No VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Remarks: Absolute % Cover 30 Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Tree Stratum (Plot size:30 feet Hydrophytic vegetation present? Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC:0Quercus macrocarpa Yes Indicator Status FACU UPL Dominant Species No Tilia cordata 0% 45 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size:15 feet Prevalence Index Worksheet 15 Total number of dominant species across all strata:3 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: Yes 0 =Total Cover 133 15 152 Total % cover of: (A) (B) (A/B) 4 0 8 0 Prevalence Index (B/A):4.05 Herb stratum:(Plot size:5 feet Poa pratensis (B) OBL Species: FACW Species: FAC Species: FACU species: UPL Species: Totals: x 1 = x 3 = x 2 = x 4 = x 5 = 615 75 532 0 (A) 0 70 15 10 8 4 Woody vine stratum:(Plot size:15 feet Salidago canadensis Erigeron annuus Parthenocissus quinquefolia Phalaris arundinacea 0 =Total Cover =Total Cover Yes No No No 107 No FACU FACU FACU FACU FACW Is the sampled area within a wetland? Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present?No Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation Dominance test >50% Prevalence index is ≤3.0* Morphological adaptations* (Provide supporting data in remarks) %% 100 100 No Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?No Saturation Present? Remarks *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Coast Prairie Redox (A16)(LRR K,L,R) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)(LRR K, L, R) Soil pit was dug to 10 inches. Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Field Observations: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Present? Gauge or Well Data (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Crack (B6) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence or Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Sediment Deposits (B2) Water Marks (B1) Saturation (A3) High Water Table (A2) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Drift Deposits (B3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: Matrix Color (moist) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) SOILS (Midwest Region) Sample Point:W7-B Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 10YR 4/3 Redox Features Loc**Type*Texture Silt Loam Silt Loam Depth (inches) 0-4 4-10 EXHIBIT G: Hydric Soil Indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 2 cm Muck (A10) Stratified Layers (A5) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Black Histic (A3) Histic Epipedon (A2) Histisol (A1) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils*: 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Mucky Material (S1) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Dark Surface (S7)(LRR K, L) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Material (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) I T E M: 4.F. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A dopt Resolution Directing P reparation of Plans and S pecifications and A ccepting F easibility S tudy for P roject 2020-101, 2020 S treet and Utility I mprovements S taff Contact: B randon A nderson, City Engineer Department / Division: E ngineering Division AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Adopt resolution directing preparation of plans and specifications and accepting feasibility study for Project 2020-101, 2020 Street and Utility Improvements. S UM M ARY: T he C ity of Apple Valley 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program includes utility replacement and street reconstruction work on the following Palomino Hills neighborhoods (C imarron & Surrey). T he project area includes C imarron Road (from Palomino Drive to Pennock Avenue), Cimarron C ircle, Yancey Court, Cimarron C ourt, Surrey Trail, Greylock C ourt, Shasta Court, Beaumont C ourt, and Sabra C ourt. T he total project length is approximately 10,000 feet. T he proposed street improvements consist of full street reconstruction and include upgrading the street from a paved rural section to a paved urban section with concrete curb and gutter. T he proposed utility improvements consist of full replacement of the existing sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer. Storm sewer is proposed to be extended through the neighborhood to facilitate drainage along the proposed concrete curb and gutter. It is anticipated that construction will be completed in two construction seasons, beginning Spring of 2020 with completion by the Fall of 2021. Proposed street and utility improvements during the 2020 construction season would include Cimarron Road between Palomino Drive and approximately 580’ east of Butte Avenue, Cimarron C ircle, Yancey C ourt, Shasta Court, Beaumont C ourt, and Sabra C ourt (totaling approximately 4,800 feet of roadway). Proposed street and utility improvements during the 2021 construction season would include C imarron Road between Pennock Avenue and approximately 580’ east of Butte Avenue, Greylock C ourt, C imarron Court, and Surrey Trail (totaling approximately 5,200 feet of roadway). T he proposed construction phasing was established based on the routing of the existing and proposed sanitary sewer. A map of the proposed project area is attached (Figure: 1). T he proposed project area regularly experiences water main breaks; the sanitary sewer requires regular root cutting; and the street Overall C ondition Index (O C I) rating is 50-70, well below the City goal of 74. T he project development tasks for the proposed improvements would involve the following scope of work. Conduct a neighborhood informational meeting to discuss the project with residents. Prepare plans, specifications, and a project cost estimate and schedule for construction. Review project plans and cost estimate with the C ity C ouncil prior to public bid process. B AC K G RO UND: City C ouncil adopted Resolution Number 2018-120 on August 23, 2018, Authorizing Preparation of a Feasibility Study for Project 2020-101, Street and Utility Improvements. B UD G E T I M PAC T: Project costs and funding included in the preliminary 2020 operating budget are summarized as follows: Estimated Project C osts: C onstruction Cost $ 3,771,197 C onstruction Contingency (10%)377,197 Engineering, C ontract Admin, Inspection, Testing, Survey (25%)944,606 Total Estimated C ost $ 5,093,000 Estimated Project Funding Water Utility $ 886,894 Sanitary Sewer Utility 936,054 Storm Sewer Utility 870,000 Street Light Utility 35,000 Road Improvement Fund 2,365,052 Total Estimated Funding $ 5,093,000 AT TAC HM E NT S : Map Resolution Report Report Report Report 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Figure 1 City of Apple Valley 2020 Capital Improvement Program Areas FEETSCALE 0 30001500 N Cimarron Road Palomino Drive Cimarr o n Yancey Sh a s t a C o u r t Cirlce Court B e a um o n t C o u r t Sabra Court160th Street (Co. Rd 46)Pilot Knob Rd140th Street McAndrews Rd Garden View DriveCedar Ave150th Street (Co. Rd 42)Interstate 35ECITY HALL CITY OF APPLE VALLEY RESOLUTION NO. 2019- A RESOLUTION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR PROJECT 2020-101, 2020 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City’s Capital Improvements Program identifies streets for proposed infrastructure improvements in 2020; and WHEREAS, the feasibility study recommends improvements for sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer and street reconstruction within the project area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the scope of proposed improvements associated with the 2020 Street and Utility Improvements project; and WHEREAS, the City Council considers it to be in the best interest of the City to begin the process of information gathering and have plans and specifications prepared for said improvements scheduled for construction in the year 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, that: 1. Feasibility Study for Project 2020-101, 2020 Street and Utility Improvements is hereby accepted. 2. Improvement Project 2020-101, 2020 Street and Utility Improvements is hereby established. 3. Staff is directed to prepare plans and specifications. ADOPTED this 26th day of September 2019. __________________________________ Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2035 County Road D East Maplewood, MN 55109 P: 651-704-9970 F: 651-704-9971 Feasibility Report for 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements (Cimarron/Surrey Neighborhood) September 19, 2019 Apple Valley, Minnesota City Project No. 2020-101 BMI Project No. N14.117293 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Certification Page 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Certification 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. By: Michael Boex, P.E. License No. 44576 Date: September 19, 2019 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Table of Contents I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Ii. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 1 Cimarron Road, Cimarron Circle, Yancey Court, Cimarron Court, Surrey Trail, Shasta Court, Beaumont Court, And Sabra Court .................................................................................................... 1 Greylock Court ................................................................................................................................... 2 Geotechnical Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 2 Iii. Proposed Improvements ................................................................................................................... 3 Sanitary Sewer ................................................................................................................................... 3 Watermain ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Streets ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Greylock Court ................................................................................................................................... 8 Storm Sewer And Stormwater Management .................................................................................... 8 Iv. Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 18 V. Private Utilities ................................................................................................................................ 19 Vi. Permits And Easements Required ................................................................................................... 19 Required Permits ............................................................................................................................. 19 Required Easements ........................................................................................................................ 19 Vii. Estimated Costs ............................................................................................................................... 20 Viii. Financing .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Ix. Project Schedule .............................................................................................................................. 22 X. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 22 Tables Table 3.1 – Street Section Options................................................................................................................ 5 Table 3.2 – Cul-De-Sac Dimensions ............................................................................................................... 7 Table 3.3 – 100-Year Peak Water Surface Elevation for WVR-P111 and WVR-P11 .................................... 10 Table 3.4 – 100-Year Peak Outflow into Cedar Avenue .............................................................................. 10 Table 3.5 – Option 1 Hydraulics Summary .................................................................................................. 12 Table 3.6 – Option 2 Hydraulics Summary .................................................................................................. 13 Table 3.7 – Option 3 Hydraulics Summary .................................................................................................. 15 Table 3.8 – Total Suspended Soils and Total Phosphorous Loading ........................................................... 18 Table 7.1 – Estimated Project Costs Summary ........................................................................................... 21 Appendix Appendix A – Preliminary Cost Estimate Appendix B – Geotechnical Evaluation Figures Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Utility Improvements Figure 3: Street Improvements Figure 4: Street Section Options Figure 5: Proposed Easement Areas Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This report examines the proposed improvements for the City of Apple Valley’s 2020 Street and Utility Improvements project (City Project No. 2020-101). The project area is shown on Figure 1. The project area is scheduled for reconstruction beginning in 2020 as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The project area includes Cimarron Road (from Palomino Drive to Pennock Avenue), Cimarron Circle, Yancey Court, Cimarron Court, Surrey Trail, Greylock Court, Shasta Court, Beaumont Court, and Sabra Court. The total project length is approximately 10,000 feet. The proposed street improvements consist of full street reconstruction and include upgrading the street from a paved rural section to a paved urban section with concrete curb and gutter. The proposed utility improvements consist of full replacement of the existing sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer. Storm sewer is proposed to be extended through the neighborhood to facilitate drainage along the proposed concrete curb and gutter. The preliminary layout of the proposed utility improvements and street improvements is shown in Figures 2 and 3 respectively. To determine the feasibility of constructing the 2020 Street and Utility Improvements, the City of Apple Valley has requested that a preliminary engineering report be prepared. This report will review the existing conditions in the project area and discuss, in detail, the proposed improvements. It will also provide preliminary cost estimates for the proposed improvements along with methods for financing the project. If the City decides to proceed with the proposed street and utility improvements described in this report, it is anticipated construction will be completed in two construction seasons, beginning Spring of 2020 with completion by the Fall of 2021. Proposed street and utility improvements during the 2020 construction season would include Cimarron Road between Palomino Drive and approximately 580’ east of Butte Avenue, Cimarron Circle, Yancey Court, Shasta Court, Beaumont Court, and Sabra Court (totaling approximately 4,800 feet of roadway). Proposed street and utility improvements during the 2021 construction season would include Cimarron Road between Pennock Avenue and approximately 580’ east of Butte Avenue, Greylock Court, Cimarron Court, and Surrey Trail (totaling approximately 5,200 feet of roadway). The proposed construction phasing was established based on the routing of the existing and proposed sanitary sewer. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS CIMARRON ROAD, CIMARRON CIRCLE, YANCEY COURT, CIMARRON COURT, SURREY TRAIL, SHASTA COURT, BEAUMONT COURT, AND SABRA COURT The existing utilities and street along Cimarron Road, Cimarron Circle, Yancey Court, Cimarron Court, Surrey Trail, Shasta Court, Beaumont Court, and Sabra Court were primarily constructed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The existing utilities and streets are described as follows: • The existing sanitary sewer is 9” vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with 4” cast iron service pipes • The existing watermain is 4” to 6” cast iron pipe (CIP) with ¾” copper service pipes • The existing public storm sewer is primarily reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) with pipe sizes ranging from 12” to 21”. Existing culverts beneath residential driveways to facilitate drainage through the existing ditches are also present. The materials of these culverts vary Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 2 between corrugated metal pipe (CMP), high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, and RCP and range in size from 8” to 18” • Cimarron Road, Yancey Court, Cimarron Court, and Surrey Trail are approximately 24’ wide rural streets with vegetated ditches and bituminous curb at varying locations • Cimarron Circle is a 32’ face-to-face wide urban street with D412 concrete curb and gutter GREYLOCK COURT The existing utilities and street along Greylock Court were constructed in the early 2000s and are described as follows: • The existing sanitary sewer is 8” PVC with 4” PVC service pipes • The existing watermain is 6” ductile iron pipe (DIP) with 1” copper service pipes • The existing storm sewer is RCP with pipe sizes ranging from 12” to 27” • Greylock Court is a 28’ face-to-face wide urban street with surmountable concrete curb and gutter The sanitary sewer and watermain along Greylock Court also serve the Palomino East apartment complex, located east of Greylock Court. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION A geotechnical evaluation was performed by Braun Intertec and a report was provided to the City of Apple Valley in October 2018. As part of the geotechnical evaluation, 25 standard penetration test (SPT) borings were performed. These borings indicated that the average bituminous and aggregate base depth of the existing street is 4” and 9” respectively. The geotechnical evaluation is included in Appendix B. All of the 25 SPT borings were performed to a nominal depth of 14.5’. Additional SPT borings to deeper nominal depths should be obtained in conjunction with final design to determine soil conditions beneath the invert elevation of the lowest proposed utility pipe (typically sanitary sewer). SPT borings should also be obtained within Shasta Court, Beaumont Court, and Sabra Court in conjunction with final design since none were collected during the initial geotechnical evaluation. Bolton & Menk can assist City staff with determining locations and depths of additional SPT borings. This geotechnical evaluation also indicated that a petroleum odor was detected within one of the borings. This report does not include a cost estimate for remediation of contaminated soils. Further geotechnical evaluation to determine the scope of the contaminated material and estimate the cost of remediation should be conducted in conjunction with final design. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 3 III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed utility and street improvements are shown on Figure 2 and 3. The following is a discussion of each item: SANITARY SEWER All existing 9” VCP sanitary sewer and manholes within the project area are proposed to be replaced with 8” PVC sanitary sewer and new precast concrete manholes. VCP has historically been susceptible to cracking and root intrusion (potentially impeding flow and requiring additional maintenance). Existing 4” cast iron service pipes are proposed to be replaced with 4” PVC service pipes from the proposed sanitary sewer main to the property line. Sanitary sewer locate boxes per the current City standards are proposed to be installed in conjunction with the service replacement. Adjustments to the locations of proposed sanitary sewer manholes will be performed to make the sanitary sewer more accessible to City staff and to provide additional room to accommodate the parallel watermain. City staff has identified one segment of sanitary sewer on Cimarron Road that recently experienced a backup affecting a home and is being cleaned on a 6-month cycle. The slope of this pipe, along with several other pipes throughout the project area, is flatter than the recommended minimum slope per the current Ten State Standards Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. Therefore, pipe slopes will be adjusted to the recommended minimum slopes. Additional sanitary sewer within the existing utility easement west of Cimarron Court will be replaced to lower the sanitary sewer and increase pipe slope upstream. While this sanitary sewer replacement allows for the proposed upstream sanitary sewer pipe to meet the recommended minimum slopes, additional tree removal within the existing drainage and utility easement west of Cimarron Court will be required to lower the sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer replacement across Palomino Drive is proposed at Shasta Court and Beaumont Court to allow for the sanitary sewer within the cul-de-sacs to be lowered to a depth that provides sufficient vertical clearance from the proposed watermain at the City’s standard depth. Additional sanitary sewer replacement within the boulevard of Palomino Drive east of Sabra Court is also proposed to allow for the sanitary sewer within Sabra Court to be lowered providing the same improvements as described above. Replacement of utilities on Palomino Drive will require some street reconstruction within Palomino Drive and a temporary closure and detour around Palomino Drive. Segments of sanitary sewer pipe have been identified as potential candidates for curing in-place pipe (CIPP) lining instead of replacement as no changes in the pipe alignment or slope are anticipated. The proposed CIPP segments are as follows: 1. Within utility easement between Yancey Court and Shasta Court 2. Along Palomino Drive between Cimarron Road and Beaumont Court 3. Along Palomino Drive between Sabra Court and Cedar Avenue CIPP lining offers the ability to rehabilitate the existing pipe while minimizing site disturbance. The condition of the existing sanitary sewer should be reviewed as part of final design to confirm the feasibility of a CIPP liner. In lieu of service pipe replacement at these segments, service liners would also be considered during final design. Performing the proposed CIPP lining will rehabilitate Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 4 the remaining VCP sanitary sewer pipe in the vicinity of this neighborhood. Televising of the existing sanitary sewer in conjunction with final design should be performed to evaluate the condition of the existing sanitary sewer main and to confirm service wye locations. The condition of the existing sanitary sewer structures adjacent to the CIPP lining should also be evaluated as structure rehabilitation via a spray liner can potentially be used instead of structure replacement. WATERMAIN All existing CIP watermain within the project area is proposed to be replaced with 8” DIP. Isolation valves throughout the project area will also be replaced with the watermain. Locations of proposed valves will be placed within City guidelines to allow for watermain isolation of 20-25 single family homes and isolation of all cul-de-sacs. Existing ¾” copper service pipes are proposed to be replaced with 1” copper services pipes from the proposed watermain to the property line. The existing curb stop will also be replaced in conjunction with the service replacement. All fire hydrants within the project area are proposed to be replaced, and existing fire hydrant leads are proposed to be replaced with 6” DIP. Fire hydrant coverage areas and spacing will meet the City guidelines of 300-foot coverage radii and 600-foot maximum spacing. Locations of some existing fire hydrants have been adjusted as deficiencies in coverage and conflicts with other utilities were identified. Several unsealed water wells throughout the project area are recorded in the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Well Index. It is assumed that all homes within the project area are have City water service, and the wells are no longer in use, however, the status and location of these wells should be confirmed in conjunction with final design as the MDH and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) both require that unsealed water supply wells be at least 50 feet from underground sanitary and storm sewers. STREETS Several street sections were considered as part of this feasibility report. An illustration of the street section options is shown on Figure 4. While evaluating street section options, the following items taken into consideration: • Change in impervious area and subsequent impacts to stormwater runoff, wetlands, and ponds • Driveway patch slopes • Grading and slopes outside of the street The table below summarizes the street section options: Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 5 Table 3.1 – Street Section Options Street Section New Impervious Area (ac) Pros Cons 24’ Edge-to-Edge Rural Roadway 0.0 • Matches existing street width • No new impervious area created and no impacts to ponds and wetlands • Driveway patches would match existing driveway slopes • Grading outside of the street would match existing conditions • Non-standard City street section • All existing ditches would remain in place • Existing off-road nuisance drainage issues would remain • Ongoing edge-of-road maintenance due to vehicles and snow plows traveling off the paved surface 24’ Face-to-Face Urban Roadway STR-33 0.32 • Minor new impervious area created and minor impacts to ponds and wetlands • Driveway patches would closely match existing driveway slopes • Some ditches could be filled and sloped toward the street. Stormwater could be collected and conveyed through the curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. • On-street parking is not permitted • Typically only used on privately owned and maintained dead-end streets • Public utilities would be located behind curb in some areas Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 6 Table 3.1 – Street Section Options Street Section New Impervious Area (ac) Pros Cons 26’ Face-to-Face Urban Roadway STR-31A 0.85 • Closely resembles the existing character of the neighborhood • Manageable impacts to ponds and wetlands due to new impervious area created • Intended to be used in environmentally sensitive areas • Some ditches could be filled and sloped toward the street. Stormwater could be collected and conveyed through the curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. • On-street parking is permitted on only one side of roadway 32’ Face-to-Face Urban Roadway STR-28A 2.15 • Consistent with standard City roadway width • On-street parking is permitted on both sides of roadway • Some ditches could be filled and sloped toward the street. Stormwater could be collected and conveyed through the curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. • Runoff from new impervious area would be difficult to manage within existing ponds and wetlands without significant expansion • Driveway patches would be difficult or impossible to match existing driveway slopes • Grading behind curb would require steep slopes and retaining walls The 26’ face-to-face wide street is proposed in this project area, because it closely maintains the existing character of the neighborhood, allows for driveway patches that closely match existing grades since the road width would not be drastically changing from the existing 24’ width, and has a manageable increase in new impervious area. As parking is only permitted on one side of the street with this option, “no parking” signs are proposed to be installed on the non-parking side of the street. The 26’ face-to-face wide street is also proposed to be constructed on Cimarron Circle. Narrowing the road from 32’ face-to-face to 26’ face-to-face will provide additional front yard to the adjacent residents, reduce the amount of total new imperious area created, and provide a consistent street width throughout the neighborhood. Sidewalk extensions through the neighborhood were considered as part of this feasibility report. Sidewalks in residential neighborhoods in Apple Valley are 5’ wide and are typically located 7’ from the back-of-curb (allowing room for snow storage.) Narrower widths between the curb and Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 7 sidewalk have been used, but are not preferred. Similar to the street section evaluation, consideration was given to the change in impervious area and subsequent impacts to stormwater runoff, wetlands, and ponds; driveway patch slopes; and grading and slopes behind the sidewalk when evaluating the extension of sidewalk through the neighborhood. The addition of a 5’ wide sidewalk on one side of the street would have the following impacts: • Create approximately 0.9 acres of additional new impervious area resulting in additional stormwater runoff and greater impacts to adjacent wetlands and ponds • Driveway patches would not closely match existing driveway slopes • Grading behind sidewalk would require steep slopes and retaining walls Due to the reasons listed above, sidewalk extensions are not proposed through the project area. Existing pedestrian ramps along Palomino Drive and Pennock Avenue will be reconstructed to meet the latest accessibility guidelines set forth by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The City standard pavement section for local roads of 4 inches of bituminous on 8 inches of aggregate base is proposed to be used, however, additional soil corrections beneath the standard pavement section are anticipated. Based on the geotechnical evaluation and past construction experiences within adjacent neighborhoods, a 2 foot select granular borrow section with geotextile fabric is proposed beneath the aggregate base throughout the entire project. Additional stabilizing aggregate base in lieu of granular borrow is anticipated throughout approximately 10% of the project area. Existing and proposed cul-de-sac radii for the various streets are as follows. Radii for existing streets with concrete curb and gutter are measured to the back-of-curb and radii for existing streets without concrete curb and gutter are measured to the edge-of-pavement. All radii for new streets are measured to the back-of-curb. Table 3.2 – Cul-De-Sac Dimensions Street Existing Cul-De-Sac Radius Proposed Cul-De-Sac Radius Cimarron Circle 46' to BOC 45' to BOC Yancey Court 41' to EOP 43' to BOC Cimarron Court ≈ 32' to EOP (Oblong shape) 43' to BOC Greylock Court 47' to BOC 47' to BOC Shasta Court ≈ 36' to EOP (Oblong shape) 43' to BOC Beaumont Court ≈ 32' to EOP (Oblong shape) 43' to BOC Sabra Court 39' to EOP 43' to BOC City staff has identified turning movement issues along Cimarron Road (west of Butte Avenue) where the existing street makes an approximately 90-degree turn. This horizontal curve is proposed to be lengthened to the greatest extent practical within the existing right-of-way to allow for better turning movements. It is recommended to install horizontal alignment warning signs in advance of this curve per the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD). Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 8 On Butte Avenue, the existing street is closed annually during the winter months due to the existing steep grade presenting a hazard to drivers. The street is closed by temporary signs being placed across Butte Avenue at Cimarron Road and Hidden Meadow Road. City staff expressed some interest in considering other options aside from temporary signs to prohibit vehicles from traveling on the street. One option discussed was a gate. Preliminary costs have been included in this report, however, details regarding the closure mechanism will be considered during final design. GREYLOCK COURT The existing underground utilities within Greylock Court were constructed with materials consistent with the City’s current standards and are not showing evidence which would warrant replacement (e.g. frequent maintenance of the sanitary sewer or higher than average watermain breaks). Therefore, no replacement of the existing sanitary sewer or watermain is proposed as part of this project. Greylock Court is proposed to undergo a full pavement removal and replacement with 4 inches of new bituminous pavement as the existing pavement has not deteriorated enough to warrant a full street reconstruction. While the concrete curb and gutter has also not deteriorated enough to warrant full replacement, the proposed storm sewer improvements described below will require replacement of approximately 30% of the existing concrete curb and gutter and it is anticipated that approximately 10% of the remaining concrete curb and gutter would undergo spot replacement where it is damaged. Due to the high percentage of concrete curb and gutter requiring replacement, it is proposed to reconstruct all of the concrete curb and gutter within Greylock Court. Performing a full replacement of the concrete curb and gutter also allows for the opportunity to reconstruct the roadway to a 26’ face-to-face wide street to provide a consistent street width throughout the neighborhood and slightly reduce the amount of total new imperious area created. A mill-and-overlay with spot curb replacement was considered, but the risks present with reflective cracking indicate the pavement on Greylock Court would not last as long as the adjacent reconstructed roadways. However, a full pavement replacement would reset the pavement life of this street and prevent a situation where future construction traffic would have to access Greylock Court through the reconstructed Cimarron Road. Therefore, a full removal and replacement of the existing bituminous pavement is recommended. STORM SEWER AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Due to the existing driveways present in the project area, it is not feasible to make significant grade changes without adversely impacting the existing driveway slopes. Generally, existing drainage patterns will be maintained. Improvements to the street centerline grade are proposed to facilitate street drainage. Where practical, existing ditches will be filled and sloped toward the street so that stormwater can be collected and conveyed through the proposed concrete curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. Driveway culverts and beehive catch basins are proposed to be installed to convey and collect stormwater where ditches cannot be filled. The project area’s natural ability to attenuate peak stormwater runoff through surface storage and open ditch conveyances will be reduced through surface capture (concrete curb and gutter with catch basins) and concentrated conveyance (storm sewer pipe). This results in a reduction in nuisance surface flooding in the project area but an increase in discharge to the City’s wetlands and stormwater ponds. This is further exacerbated by the increase in impervious surface which causes an increase in stormwater runoff volume. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 9 Since this project increases the total impervious area of the site, any configuration of storm sewer pipe will result in transfer of stormwater to locations that present potential impacts to erosion areas or peak water surface elevations of existing wetlands and stormwater ponds. Ideally, the proposed stormwater management system in this project area would achieve the following: • Eliminate the existing surface erosion issue between Cimarron Court and Hidden Meadow Road • Maintain existing inflow volumes, discharge rates, and peak water surface elevations in the adjacent wetlands and stormwater ponds (i.e. WVR-P111, WVR-P11, WVR-P11.1, WVR- P11.2, WVR-P112, WVR-P130, BD-P7, BD-P13, BD-P14, BD-P140, and BD-P15) • Avoid replacement of the existing storm sewer system in Greylock Court • Avoid expansion of WVR-P112 for stormwater storage • Avoid replacement of the existing storm sewer system in Palomino Drive • Achieve 10-year pipe capacity for storm water conveyance per the City’s current design standards and reduce surface flooding with adequate catch basins. This includes the proposed storm sewer as well as the adjacent existing storm sewer systems Storm sewer and stormwater management within the project area was generally evaluated within the following subareas: 1. Surrey Trail Area 2. Cimarron Court, Greylock Court, and Cimarron Road between the two 3. Cimarron Road within the Vermillion River Watershed (excluding the portion described above) 4. Cimarron Road within the Black Dog Watershed (including Yancey Court and Cimarron Circle) 5. Shasta Court draining to BD-P13 6. Shasta Court and Beaumont Court draining to BD-P7 7. Sabra Court The following is a summary of options to accommodate area drainage and the benefits and challenges of each. Surrey Trail Area Currently, stormwater throughout Surrey Trail is primarily conveyed through an open ditch system to WVR-P111 near the intersection of Pennock Avenue and Cimarron Road. Stormwater discharges into WVR-P111 through a 12” inlet pipe. Stormwater is then discharged from WVR- P111 through another 12” outlet pipe to the underground storm sewer system along Pennock Avenue and ultimately to the Cedar Avenue storm sewer system. New underground storm sewer is proposed along Surrey Trail. This storm sewer will connect to the storm sewer along Cimarron Road and ultimately discharge into WVR-P111 as it does in the existing condition. Stormwater through an underground storm sewer system is conveyed more efficiently than storm sewer through an open ditch system. This results in an increase in discharge Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 10 into WVR-P111 and a corresponding increase in the peak water surface elevation during rainfall events. To mitigate the increase in the peak water surface elevation, the outlet pipe of WVR-P111 is proposed to be upsized from a 12” pipe to a 15” pipe. The new outlet would tie into the existing storm sewer pipe located on the west side of Pennock Avenue between WVR-P111 and WVR-P11. From there, a new 12” pipe diversion would discharge bypass flows into WVR-P11 while the remaining stormwater would continue through the existing 12” pipe to the storm sewer system along Pennock Avenue. Table 3.1 describes the peak water surface elevations for WVR-P111 and WVR-P11 during the 100-year rainfall event in the existing condition, in the proposed condition without the stormwater diversion, and in the proposed condition with the stormwater diversion. Table 3.3 – 100-Year Peak Water Surface Elevation for WVR-P111 and WVR-P11 Pond ID Existing Elevation Proposed Elevation Without Diversion Proposed Elevation With Diversion (ft) (ft) (ft) WVR-P111 1019.1 1019.9 1019.1 WVR-P11 1004.8 1004.5 1005.0 Without a stormwater diversion as described above, WVR-P111 would see an increase in peak water surface elevation of approximately 0.8’. The flow diversion will shift the peak water surface elevation increase to WVR-P11 where there is less potential impact to adjacent homes. The 0.2’ increase will maintain adequate freeboard to adjacent structures. While the flow diversion reduces the peak water surface elevation in WVR-P111 and maintains adequate freeboard to adjacent structures, construction of the flow diversion will require removal of existing trees within the City owned property and drainage and utility easement west of Pennock Avenue. The peak outflow into the Cedar Avenue storm sewer system was also calculated. Table 3.2 summarizes the peak outflow in the same three conditions as described above. Table 3.4 – 100-Year Peak Outflow into Cedar Avenue Existing Outflow Proposed Outflow Without Diversion Proposed Outflow With Diversion (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 10.8 10.3 9.7 For both proposed scenarios, the peak outflow is less than the existing condition due to less direct area being routed to the ponds with the addition of concrete curb and gutter to facilitate drainage. Cimarron Court, Greylock Court, and Cimarron Road between the two Currently, stormwater on Cimarron Court is primarily conveyed through an open ditch system to a depression and culvert at the northwest end of the cul-de-sac. This culvert discharges stormwater Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 11 overland to Hidden Meadow Road where it is collected in the existing storm sewer. City staff have identified erosion issues along the path of overland stormwater discharge from this culvert and determined that resolving this erosion issue is a priority of the utility improvements. Three options were considered for managing stormwater within this area. All three options involve diverting stormwater from the Black Dog Watershed to the Vermillion River Watershed. The downstream stormwater management system within the Vermillion River Watershed was analyzed to determine the impacts to rate control and discharge volume due to the increased volume, and it was determined that the system can accommodate the change in drainage direction with the modifications described below. The drainage boundary change was discussed with the Vermillion River Watershed. Overall, the project does not cause an adverse impact to Vermillion River Watershed surface storage areas and the reduction in erosion west of Cimarron Court will result in a net environmental improvement. It is recommended to provide draft plans to the Vermillion River Watershed during final design, but no additional permitting will be required. Option 1 – Reroute Cimarron Court Stormwater to Greylock Court Option 1 considers construction of storm sewer in the Cimarron Court cul-de-sac and rerouting stormwater via underground storm sewer to the east toward Greylock Court. The existing storm sewer system in Greylock Court is not large enough to accommodate the 10-year rainfall event without stormwater surcharging above the proposed catch basins in Cimarron Court, and the storage volume of WVR-P112 is not large enough to accommodate the additional stormwater volume and maintain an acceptable peak water surface elevation during the 100-year rainfall event. Therefore, the storm sewer pipe along Greylock Court and the storm sewer pipe between Greylock Court and WVR-P112 would be increased from the existing 21” and 27” pipes to 33” pipe and additional stormwater storage volume would be excavated near WVR-P112. Cimarron Court would require three catch basin inlets in the cul-de-sac to manage surface flooding. These catch basins could be clustered at the low point in Cimarron Court, or distributed at on-grade locations along the street. Final catch basin configuration would be analyzed during final design. An existing depression south of Greylock Court is currently served by a 12” pipe and flared end which ultimately drains to WVR-P112 through the same storm sewer pipe as the neighborhood. In order to mitigate an increase in peak water surface elevation of this depression during the 100- year rainfall event, it would also be proposed to increase the pipe size from a 12” to a 21” to better convey flow between the south depression and WVR-P112. Benefits: • Overland stormwater flow from the culvert between Cimarron Court to Hidden Meadow Road would be diverted away from Hidden Meadow Road. Therefore, the potential for erosion would be significantly reduced • The increased pipe sizes at Greylock Court would provide enough capacity to prevent storm sewer structure surcharging during the 10-year rainfall event Challenges: • The storm sewer pipe along Greylock Court and the storm sewer pipe between Greylock Court and WVR-P112 would need to be upsized to reduce the likelihood of structure surcharging (at Cimarron Court in particular). Construction of the storm sewer pipe between Greylock Court and WVR-P112 would be challenging as the existing pipe is beneath an Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 12 existing driveway and close to an existing home. If the existing pipe could not be replaced in the same location, additional drainage and utility easement from the neighboring property would be needed to construct an adjacent pipe • The increase in stormwater volume to WVR-P112 for the 100-year rainfall event is approximately 30,000 cubic feet, and assuming a 4-foot excavation for flood storage, an area of approximately 7,500 square feet (0.17 acres) would be needed to store the additional stormwater volume and mitigate an increase in peak water surface elevation. Temporary construction easement and additional drainage and utility easement near WVR- P112 may be required to excavate the additional flood storage volume. Tree clearing would also need to occur to provide room for the additional stormwater storage Table 3.5 – Option 1 Hydraulics Summary Location ID Description Condition Result Unit 1 Overland Flow Between Cimarron Court and Hidden Meadow Road Existing 10-Year Flow 7.0 CFS Proposed 10-Year Flow ≈ 0 CFS 2 WVR-P112 Existing 100-Year Elev 1006.63 FT Existing 100-Year Volume 390,800 CU FT Proposed 100-Year Elev 1006.93 FT Proposed 100-Year Volume 418,000 CU FT 3 Depression South of Greylock Court Existing 100-Year Elev 1009.74 FT Proposed 100-Year Elev (12" lead) 1010.96 FT Proposed 100-Year Elev (21" lead) 1009.95 FT Option 2 – Drain West Half of Cimarron Court to the West into Existing Swale Option 2 considers construction of underground storm sewer in the Cimarron Court cul-de-sac and rerouting only the east half of the Cimarron Court via storm sewer toward Greylock Court. The west half of Cimarron Court and the cul-de-sac would be served by three catch basin inlets and piped into the existing path of overland flow that discharges at Hidden Meadow Road. These catch basins could be clustered at the low point in Cimarron Court, or distributed at on-grade locations along the street. Final catch basin configuration would be analyzed during final design. The existing 21” storm sewer pipe along Greylock Court would need to be increased to a 27” pipe to reduce surcharge in the proposed storm sewer in Cimarron Road, but the existing 27” pipe between Greylock Court and WVR-P112 could remain in place. The 12” lead serving the depression south of Greylock Court would need to be increased to 27” pipe to mitigate the additional “backflow” into the depression for the 100-year rainfall event. The 27” pipe would help convey stormwater from the south depression to WVR-P112. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 13 Benefits: • The existing 27” storm sewer pipe between Greylock Court and WVR-P112 could remain in place and no additional stormwater storage volume would need to be created in the vicinity of WVR-P112 • The peak water surface elevation in WVR-P112 would not increase when compared to the existing condition 100-year rainfall event. Further, the peak water surface elevation and inflow volume would be slightly reduced for the 100-year rainfall as compared to the existing condition as a result of stormwater being routing directly to WVR-P11 and WVR- P11.1 uphill on Cimarron Road due to the addition of concrete curb and gutter • The discharge rate to Hidden Meadow Road, while not eliminated, would be slightly reduced when compared to the existing condition Challenges: • While the discharge rate to Hidden Meadow Road would be slightly reduced, it would likely not be enough to completely mitigate the existing erosion issues which were identified as a priority to address • The existing storm sewer pipe along Greylock Court would need to be increased to a 27” pipe to reduce surcharging, and the existing pipe serving the depression south of Greylock Court would need to be increased to a 27” pipe to mitigate increases in peak water surface elevation for the 100-year rainfall event Table 3.6 – Option 2 Hydraulics Summary Location ID Description Condition Result Unit 1 Overland Flow Between Cimarron Court and Hidden Meadow Road Existing 10-Year Flow 7.0 CFS Proposed 10-Year Flow 6.1 CFS 2 WVR-P112 Existing 100-Year Elev 1006.63 FT Existing 100-Year Volume 390,800 CU FT Proposed 100-Year Elev 1006.50 FT Proposed 100-Year Volume 370,200 CU FT 3 Depression South of Greylock Court Existing 100-Year Elev 1009.74 FT Proposed 100-Year Elev (12" lead) 1011.05 FT Proposed 100-Year Elev (27" lead) 1010.65 FT Option 3 – Route West Half of Cimarron Court to the West Via underground Storm Sewer and Connect into Hidden Meadow Road Storm Sewer Option 3 considers construction of storm sewer in Cimarron Court and routing stormwater through underground storm sewer to the west, ultimately connecting into the underground storm sewer along Hidden Meadow Road instead of via overland flow. Construction of storm sewer to serve the only west half of Cimarron Court and all of Cimarron Court were analyzed to determine Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 14 the effects of the connection to the Hidden Meadow Road storm sewer. Also, the 10-year rainfall event pipe capacity of the existing Hidden Meadow Road storm sewer system was calculated to determine the impacts of the connection. To maintain existing discharge rates and avoid adverse impacts to Hidden Meadow Road, only the west half of Cimarron Court could be discharged to Hidden Meadow Road while the east half of Cimarron Court would be rerouted toward Greylock Court (similar to Option 2). If all of Cimarron Court was discharged to Hidden Meadow Road, the conversion of open ditch to underground storm sewer would cause an increase in discharge rate to Hidden Meadow Road and potential adverse impacts to the downstream storm sewer. In the existing condition, stormwater is conveyed overland to the west and enters Hidden Meadow Road at the street surface. The catch basin’s inlet capacity dictates the depth of water in the gutter. In the proposed condition, the new pipe system would connect to the invert of the catch basin, therefore, the downstream pipe capacity controls the level of surcharging and the depth of water in the gutter. While a brief flooding condition at the connection point at Hidden Meadow Road for the 10-year event rainfall may occur, there would be no change in the depth of water in the gutter between the existing and proposed condition. The remaining storm sewer in Hidden Meadow Road would continue to discharge under pressure, but the water elevation within the underground storm sewer system would not exceed the gutter in other locations. In order to allow all of Cimarron Court to discharge to Hidden Meadow Road through underground storm sewer, mitigation of the increase in discharge rate to Hidden Meadow Road through surface or underground storage was considered as part of this option. Preliminary calculations indicate that approximately 6,000 cubic feet of stormwater storage with a rate- restrictive outlet could reduce peak discharge into Hidden Meadow Road. However, it does not appear feasible to create this volume of surface storage within the right-of-way of Cimarron Court. Further, underground storage and infiltration via a perforated pipe and course rock envelope was considered, however, underground storage and infiltration has limited longevity, and long-term operation and maintenance has historically been difficult. Therefore, underground storage and infiltration is not recommended. Similar to Option 2, the existing 21” pipe along Greylock Court would need to be increased to a 27” pipe to reduce surcharge in the proposed storm sewer in Cimarron Road, but the existing 27” pipe between Greylock Court and WVR-P112 could remain in place. Also, similar to Option 2, the 12” lead serving the depression south of Greylock Court would need to be increased to 27” pipe to mitigate the additional “backflow” into the depression for the 100- year rainfall event. The 27” pipe would help equalize water surface elevations between the south depression and WVR-P112. Benefits: • Discharging from Cimarron Court to Hidden Meadow Road via underground storm sewer pipe would reduce the potential for erosion along the existing path of overland flow • The existing 27” storm sewer pipe between Greylock Court and WVR-P112 could remain in place and no additional stormwater storage volume would need to be created in the vicinity of WVR-P112 • The peak water surface elevation in WVR-P112 would not increase when compared to the existing condition 10-year rainfall event. Further, the peak water surface elevation and inflow volume is reduced for the 100-year rainfall as compared to the existing condition for the same reasons as described in Option 2. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 15 Challenges: • Construction of underground storm sewer between Cimarron Court and Hidden Meadow Road will require clearing of existing trees in the vicinity of the proposed storm sewer and excavation within the recently reconstructed Hidden Meadow Road. Removal of the existing vegetative cover on the slope between Cimarron Court and Hidden Meadow Road could potentially worsen the existing erosion issue as the existing vegetative cover is promoting some slope stabilization. • The existing storm sewer pipe along Greylock Court would need to be increased to a 27” pipe to reduce surcharging, and the existing pipe serving the depression south of Greylock Court would need to be increased to a 27” pipe to mitigate increases in peak water surface elevation for the 100-year rainfall event Table 3.7 – Option 3 Hydraulics Summary Location ID Description Condition Result Unit 1 Overland Flow Between Cimarron Court and Hidden Meadow Road Existing 10-Year Flow 7.0 CFS Proposed 10-Year Flow ≈ 0 CFS Hidden Meadow Road Storm Sewer Proposed 10-Year Flow 7.9 CFS 2 WVR-P112 Existing 100-Year Elev 1006.63 FT Existing 100-Year Volume 390,800 CU FT Proposed 100-Year Elev 1006.50 FT Proposed 100-Year Volume 370,200 CU FT 3 Depression South of Greylock Court Existing 100-Year Elev 1009.74 FT Proposed 100-Year Elev (12" lead) 1011.05 FT Proposed 100-Year Elev (27" lead) 1010.65 FT Of the three options presented above, Option 1 was chosen as the recommended option. Option 1 makes the most significant improvement to the erosion issue between Cimarron Court and Hidden Meadow Road which was identified by City staff as a priority to address. While this option will require expansion of the existing ponds to create additional stormwater storage and replacement of the existing storm sewer pipe near Greylock Court, City staff has expressed a willingness to working with the property owners to complete the stormwater improvements and mitigate impacts to the residents. Cimarron Road within the Vermillion River Watershed Stormwater within the portion of Cimarron Road within the Vermillion River Watershed is currently conveyed through an open ditch system to a low point near Greylock Court, ultimately discharging to WVR-P112 through the existing underground storm sewer or to a low point between 373 and 379 Cimarron Road, ultimately discharging to WVR-P11, WVR-P11.1, and WVR- P11.2 through an existing culvert. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 16 The proposed storm sewer system will generally maintain the existing drainage patterns, and impacts to WVR-P11, WVR-P11.1, WVR-P11.2, WVR-P112 beyond those already described above are not anticipated. Where practical, existing ditches will be filled and sloped toward the street so that stormwater can be collected and conveyed through the proposed concrete curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. Cimarron Road within Black Dog Watershed Stormwater within the portion of Cimarron Road within the Black Dog Watershed is currently conveyed through an open ditch system to underground storm sewer at a low point between 196 and 202 Cimarron Road, ultimately discharging to BD-P14 or to underground storm sewer at a low point between 101 and 103 Cimarron Circle, ultimately discharging to BD-P140. The proposed storm sewer system will generally maintain the existing drainage patterns, and ultimate discharge pipe sizes will not be modified. Therefore, an increase in discharge rate or peak water surface elevation in the BD-P14, BD-P140, and BD-P15 is not anticipated. Where practical, existing ditches will be filled and sloped toward the street so that stormwater can be collected and conveyed through the proposed concrete curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. Shasta Court draining to BD-P13 Stormwater within the northern portion of Shasta Court is currently conveyed through an open ditch system to an underground storm sewer pipe discharging into BD-P13. BD-P13 is a naturally landlocked pond with no specified outlet. The proposed storm sewer system will generally maintain the existing drainage pattern. Where practical, existing ditches will be filled and sloped toward the street so that stormwater can be collected and conveyed through the proposed concrete curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. BD-P13 has a large ponded area, and the slight increase in inflow due to the increased impervious area from the northern portion of Shasta Court is anticipated to have negligible effects on the peak water surface elevation of BD-P13, and because of this negligible effect, construction of a piped pond outlet is not proposed. Shasta Court and Beaumont Court draining to BD-P7 Stormwater within the southern portion of Shasta Court and all of Beaumont Court is currently conveyed south through an open ditch system to an underground storm sewer system along Palomino Drive which was reconstructed in the early 2000s. This storm sewer system drains west and ultimately discharges into BD-P7. The proposed storm sewer system will generally maintain the existing drainage pattern. Where practical, existing ditches will be filled and sloped toward the street so that stormwater can be collected and conveyed through the proposed concrete curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. The proposed improvements along the southern portion of Shasta Court and Beaumont Court are not anticipated to increase the discharge rate or the peak water surface elevation of BD-P7. The existing storm sewer pipe along Palomino Drive is large enough to handle the additional inflow from both Shasta and Beaumont Court, therefore, pipe capacity issues are not anticipated. Residents and City staff have identified a drainage issue within the rear yard of 124 Beaumont Court where a natural low area without a piped outlet is present. The feasibility of extending Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 17 storm sewer to outlet this natural low area was evaluated as part of this report. Any extension of storm sewer to this low area would require tree removal for construction and would need to be agreed upon with the adjacent residents as there is no existing drainage and utility easement within this area to construct the proposed storm sewer. The most practical alignment for the proposed storm sewer is to connect it to the existing storm sewer along Palomino Drive through the rear yard of 101 Shasta Court. This was determined to be the most practical alignment as it allows for the shallowest possible storm sewer depth and does not require the proposed storm sewer along Beaumont Court to be deeper than the typical depth. Permanent drainage and utility easements from the adjacent property owners would need to be obtained to construct and maintain the proposed storm sewer outlet. The existing storm sewer pipe along Palomino Drive is large enough to handle the additional inflow from this low area, and an increase to the discharge rate or the peak water surface elevation of BD-P7 is not anticipated. Sabra Court Stormwater within the Sabra Court is currently conveyed south through an open ditch system to an underground storm sewer system along Palomino Drive which was reconstructed in the early 2000s. This storm sewer system drains east and ultimately discharges into WVR-P130. The proposed storm sewer system will generally maintain the existing drainage pattern. Where practical, existing ditches will be filled and sloped toward the street so that stormwater can be collected and conveyed through the proposed concrete curb and gutter and the underground storm sewer. WVR-P130 has a large ponded area, and the slight increase in inflow due to the increased impervious area from Sabra Court is anticipated to have negligible effects on the discharge rate and the peak water surface elevation of WVR-P130. The existing storm sewer pipe along Palomino Drive is large enough to handle the additional inflow from Sabra Court, therefore, capacity issues are not anticipated. Additional Stormwater Management Requirements Stormwater management requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Vermillion River Joint Powers Organization (VRJPO), Black Dog Watershed Management Organization (BDWMO), and City of Apple Valley were evaluated during this feasibility study. Below is a summary of the stormwater management requirements of the various organizations. The MPCA Construction Stormwater General Permit requires volume control when one or more acres of cumulative impervious surface is created. The cumulative impervious surface created as part of this project is approximately 0.85 acres due to the increased street width and the addition of concrete curb and gutter, therefore, volume control is not required by the MPCA. Although this project area is within the VRJPO and BDWMO, the City is the local government unit (LGU) for stormwater management in both watersheds and assumes all review authority. Approximately 35% of the project area is within the BDWMO and 65% is within the VRJPO. The City of Apple Valley’s 2018 Surface Water Management Plan specifies the following policies for new and redevelopment activity of 0.2 acres or more: • Achieve no-net-increase in average annual total suspended soils (TSS) and total phosphorous (TP) loading compared to the pre-development condition • Achieve no-net-increase in average annual runoff volume compared to the pre- development condition Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 18 As this project increases the total amount of impervious surface due to the widening of the street, it should meet the requirements of these policies. TSS and TP loading was analyzed for the existing and proposed conditions to determine the relative increase in pollutant loading. The table below shows the anticipated change in TSS and TP loading due to the increased impervious area: Table 3.8 – Total Suspended Soils and Total Phosphorous Loading Pervious Area (ac) Impervious Area (ac) TSS Loading (lb) TP Loading (lb) Existing Condition 53.16 13.29 5199 31.62 Proposed Condition 52.31 14.14 5472 30.12 Change -0.85 0.85 273 1.5 The overall project goal is a TSS reduction of 273 pounds and a TP reduction of 1.5 pounds. The Sizing of Hydrodynamic Separators and Manholes (SHSAM) tool was used to estimate the size of a sump structure with SAFL baffle required to remove the required TSS and TP loads. According to SHSAM, a 6’ diameter structure with a 6’ sump and SAFL baffle is large enough to properly dissipate the inflow energy and meet the water quality goals of the project as required by the City’s Surface Water Management Plan. The sump structure is recommended to be placed online with the inlet and outlet pipe at 180 degrees. It is recommended that a sump structure be placed upstream of WVR-P111 and BD-P14 so that the water quality goals can be met in both watersheds. Debris captured within the proposed sump structures must be periodically removed and should be incorporated into the City’s routine maintenance schedule. A hydrodynamic separator (HDS) structure, such as the Downstream Defender or SciClone, could also be evaluated if additional TSS and TP reduction beyond the requirements of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan are desired. The approximately 0.85 acre increase in impervious area translates to approximately 3,250 cubic feet of total stormwater runoff volume abstraction with approximately 35% of the total runoff volume abstraction within the BDWMO and 65% is within the VRJPO. The geotechnical evaluation revealed that soils throughout many areas within the project are hydraulic soils group C and D and not conducive to infiltration. Further, existing site constraints significantly limit areas where infiltration features could feasibly be constructed. If the City decides to meet the requirements of a no-net-increase in average annual runoff volume compared to the pre-development condition, it is recommended that locations outside of the project area, but within the impacted watersheds, where soils are more permeable and space is available be considered to find other opportunities to provide the volume abstraction. Costs for offsite volume abstraction have not been included in this report. IV. WETLAND IMPACTS Impacts to natural wetlands, both temporary and permanent, will need to be permitted through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Local Government Unit (LGU) which is the City of Apple Valley. City staff identified adjacent ponds in the project area under the projection of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A preliminary investigation into the wetlands including gathering background information from available historic aerial photography, LiDAR contours, National Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 19 Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) public waters maps, and Dakota County soil survey maps was completed. Field delineations of the affected wetlands was performed in June 2019, and the Wetland Permit Application was submitted for distribution to the Technical Evaluation Panel shortly afterwards for wetland type confirmation and delineation concurrence. Wetland type confirmation and delineation concurrence will need to be received before permitting of any impacts can begin. V. PRIVATE UTILITIES Private utilities throughout the project area provide electric, natural gas, and communication services to the adjacent residents. Both underground and overhead utilities provide these services throughout the project area. These utilities exist within the public right-of-way or dedicated utility easements but are owned and maintained by private utility companies. City staff has made some private utility companies aware that this area is scheduled for reconstruction beginning in 2020 as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program, and information related to existing private utilities (maps and field locations of utilities) has been provided by the utility companies. City staff has also had preliminary discussions with the private utility companies regarding relocating overhead utilities underground. During final design, draft construction plans should be provided to the private utility companies so that conflicts and plans to relocate facilities can be coordinated. VI. PERMITS AND EASEMENTS REQUIRED REQUIRED PERMITS A permit from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) will be required for the replacement of the watermain. As this project disturbs more than one acre of land, a Phase II General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will also be required. On past street and utility improvement projects, City staff has required the contractor to obtain the permit from the MPCA prior to construction. The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) and The Black Dog Watershed Management Organization (BDWMO) do not require permit submittals for work within their watersheds. The City serves as the Local Government Unit (LGU) responsible for stormwater management, and all final stormwater management planning will be submitted to the City during final design. Temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands due to stormwater improvements will need to be permitted through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. REQUIRED EASEMENTS Most proposed public utilities will be located within public right-of-way, dedicated utility easements, or City property where additional permanent easements are not anticipated. Areas where additional easements will be required are discussed below. Pond BD-P13 is currently not encompassed within a drainage and utility easement. A drainage and utility easement over BD-P13 and the piped inlet from Shasta Court should be obtained prior to the construction of any improvements as this pond receives stormwater from public right-of-way Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 20 and functions within the City’s surface water management plan. Ponds WVR-P11 and WVR-P111 extend outside of the existing City property and drainage and utility easement. Additional drainage and utility easement over these ponds should also be obtained prior to the construction of any improvements as these ponds receives stormwater from public right-of-way and function within the City’s surface water management plan. Additional potential easements for the modification and expansion of WVR-P112 and the pipe outlet of the existing low area within the rear yard of 124 Beaumont Court may be required as discussed in the report above. The general areas were additional drainage and utility easements are anticipated are shown on Figure 5. Exact dimensions and sizes of the drainage and utility easements will be determined during final design. Some encroachment onto private property will be needed in certain situations for construction. It is anticipated that City staff will discuss these situations with property owners and obtain right-of- entries on a case-by-case basis as needed prior to construction. These construction activities include: • Sanitary and water service connections • Driveway patching • Grading from proposed back-of-curb to existing ground tie-in location VII. ESTIMATED COSTS Detailed cost estimates for construction of the utility and street improvements have been prepared and are itemized in Appendix A. While multiple options were considered for stormwater management and the proposed street section as part of this report, the costs in Appendix A summarize the estimated construction costs for stormwater management Option 1 in the area of Cimarron Court, Greylock Court, and Cimarron Road between the two (rerouting Cimarron Court stormwater to Greylock Court) and the 26’ face-to-face street section as these are the recommended options. All costs are based on anticipated pricing for the 2020 – 2021 construction seasons. All construction costs include a 10% contingency to account for any elements of construction that are unknown at this time, and an additional 25% allowance is provided for engineering, testing, legal, and administrative costs. The following is an overall summary of the estimated costs: Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 21 Table 7.1 – Estimated Project Costs Summary Phase 1 (2020) Estimated Cost Phase 2 (2021) Estimated Cost Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 847,721.00 $ 686,142.00 Watermain Improvements $ 699,584.00 $ 627,567.00 Storm Sewer Improvements $ 519,419.50 $ 657,811.00 Street Improvements $ 2,082,438.50 $ 1,972,214.00 Total Estimated Construction Costs $ 4,149,163.00 $ 3,943,734.00 25% Indirect Costs $ 1,037,291.00 $ 985,934.00 Total Project Costs $ 5,186,454.00 $ 4,929,668.00 VIII. FINANCING Special assessments are not proposed for this project. The project will be funded entirely from the City’s Sanitary Utility Fund, Water Utility Fund, Storm Water Utility Fund, and Roadway Improvement Fund. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements ǀ 2020-101 Page 22 IX. PROJECT SCHEDULE The following projects schedule assumes that construction will begin in the Spring of 2020 and 2021 for Phases 1 and 2 respectively. City Council Authorizes Preparation of Feasibility Study (Resolution Number 2018-120) August 23, 2018 Informal City Council Meeting June 13, 2019 Hold Neighborhood Meeting September 19, 2019 City Council Approves Feasibility Report and Authorizes the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Phase 1 September 26, 2019 City Council Approves Plans and Specifications and Authorizes Advertisement for Bid for Phase 1 February 13, 2020 Phase 1 Project Bid Date March 10, 2020 Phase 1 Bid Award March 26, 2020 Phase 1 Start of Construction Spring 2020 Phase 1 Substantial Completion Fall 2020 City Council Authorizes the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Phase 2 Summer 2020 City Council Approves Plans and Specifications and Authorizes Advertisement for Bid for Phase 2 February 2021 Phase 2 Project Bid Date March 2021 Phase 2 Bid Award March 2021 Phase 2 Start of Construction Spring 2021 Phase 2 Substantial Completion Fall 2021 X. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information contained herein, it can be concluded that the construction of utility and street improvements is feasible. This project is cost effective based on existing conditions and acceptable standards proposed to construct the improvements. From and engineering standpoint, this project is feasible, necessary, and cost effective. The following recommendations are therefore made: • Adopt this report as a guide for the layout, design, and cost allocation for the proposed improvements. • The City installs the public utilities and streets with construction beginning in 2020 and completed in 2021. Appendix A – Preliminary Cost Estimate Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 41,000.00$ 41,000.00$ 2 REMOVE VCP SANITARY SEWER LIN FT 4,610 6.00$ 27,660.00$ 3 REMOVE MANHOLE INCL. CASTING EACH 30 500.00$ 15,000.00$ 4 REMOVE CAST IRON SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LIN FT 3,160 1.50$ 4,740.00$ 5 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, 10'-15' DEEP LIN FT 4,210 42.00$ 176,820.00$ 6 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, 15'-20' DEEP LIN FT 215 55.00$ 11,825.00$ 7 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, 20'-25' DEEP LIN FT 70 90.00$ 6,300.00$ 8 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, 25'-30' DEEP LIN FT 85 100.00$ 8,500.00$ 9 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION TON 60 35.00$ 2,100.00$ 10 8"X4" PVC WYE EACH 79 325.00$ 25,675.00$ 11 FURNISH AND INSTALL 4' DIA MH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-1642 CSTG & HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 35 3,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 12 4' SANITARY MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LIN FT 195 185.00$ 36,075.00$ 13 CONSTRUCT 8" OUTSIDE DROP LIN FT 25 450.00$ 11,250.00$ 14 CONNECT TO EXISTING PIPE EACH 8 2,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 15 FURNISH AND INSTALL I&I BARRIER EACH 35 275.00$ 9,625.00$ 16 BYPASS PUMPING - LINING LUMP SUM 1 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ 17 9" CIPP SANITARY SEWER LINING LIN FT 2,175 50.00$ 108,750.00$ 18 LINE STRUCTURE LIN FT 75 400.00$ 30,000.00$ 19 RECONNECT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EACH 79 175.00$ 13,825.00$ 20 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LOCATE BOX EACH 79 190.00$ 15,010.00$ 21 4" PVC SCH. 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE PIPE LIN FT 3,160 20.00$ 63,200.00$ 22 4" PVC SCH. 80 SANITARY SEWER RISER PIPE LIN FT 160 30.00$ 4,800.00$ 770,655.00$ 77,066.00$ 847,721.00$ PHASE 1 (2020 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 1 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PHASE 1 (2020 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE PART 2 - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 23 REMOVE WATERMAIN LIN FT 5,230 5.00$ 26,150.00$ 24 REMOVE HYDRANT AND GATE VALVE EACH 15 350.00$ 5,250.00$ 25 REMOVE COPPER WATER SERVICE LIN FT 3,160 1.00$ 3,160.00$ 26 REMOVE CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 79 50.00$ 3,950.00$ 27 TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM LUMP SUM 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ 28 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 11 2,100.00$ 23,100.00$ 29 FURNISH AND INSTALL HYDRANT, 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 16 5,500.00$ 88,000.00$ 30 8" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52, INCL V-BIO LIN FT 5,145 49.00$ 252,105.00$ 31 6" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52, INCL V-BIO LIN FT 145 56.00$ 8,120.00$ 32 8" WATERMAIN VERTICAL OFFSET EACH 2 2,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 33 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 8 1,750.00$ 14,000.00$ 34 WATERMAIN INSULATION, 3" THICK SQ YD 45 45.00$ 2,025.00$ 35 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 3,650 9.50$ 34,675.00$ 36 RECONNECT EXISTING WATER SERVICE EACH 79 155.00$ 12,245.00$ 37 1" TYPE K COPPER WATER SERVICE PIPE LIN FT 3,160 21.00$ 66,360.00$ 38 1" CURB STOP & BOX EACH 79 355.00$ 28,045.00$ 39 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 79 400.00$ 31,600.00$ 40 WATER SERVICE INSULATION, 3" THICK SQ YD 160 45.00$ 7,200.00$ 635,985.00$ 63,599.00$ 699,584.00$ PART 3 - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 41 REMOVE 12" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 115 10.00$ 1,150.00$ 42 REMOVE 15" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 325 10.50$ 3,412.50$ 43 REMOVE 18" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 38 11.00$ 418.00$ 44 REMOVE 21" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 156 11.50$ 1,794.00$ 45 REMOVE 10" - 18" DRIVEWAY CULVERT (VARYING MATERIAL)LIN FT 1,185 12.00$ 14,220.00$ 46 REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN INCL CASTING EACH 15 750.00$ 11,250.00$ SUBTOTAL PART 2 - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL PART 2 - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 2 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PHASE 1 (2020 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 47 15" RC PIPE SEWER, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 2,385 52.00$ 124,020.00$ 48 18" RC PIPE SEWER, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 620 58.00$ 35,960.00$ 49 21" RC PIPE SEWER, 10'-15' DEEP LIN FT 135 65.00$ 8,775.00$ 50 15" RC PIPE DRIVEWAY CULVERT, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 525 55.00$ 28,875.00$ 51 2'x3' CB INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 12 2,250.00$ 27,000.00$ 52 4' DIA STORM MH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-1642 CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 12 2,850.00$ 34,200.00$ 53 4' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 15 2,950.00$ 44,250.00$ 54 4' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3382 CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 55 4' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-4342 CSTG AND CONCRETE STOOL EACH 9 2,950.00$ 26,550.00$ 56 5' DIA STORM MH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-1642 CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 2 4,250.00$ 8,500.00$ 57 5' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 5 4,500.00$ 22,500.00$ 58 6' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 1 5,250.00$ 5,250.00$ 59 7' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 1 5,750.00$ 5,750.00$ 60 4' STORM MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LIN FT 25 185.00$ 4,625.00$ 61 5' STORM MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LIN FT 8 250.00$ 2,000.00$ 62 6' STORM MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LIN FT 8 325.00$ 2,600.00$ 63 15" FLARED END SECTION W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 1,750.00$ 1,750.00$ 64 15" FLARED END SECTION W/TRASH GUARD FOR DRIVEWAY CULVERT EACH 30 1,250.00$ 37,500.00$ 65 CONNECT TO EXISTING PIPE EACH 12 1,500.00$ 18,000.00$ 472,199.50$ 47,220.00$ 519,419.50$ PART 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 66 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 131,100.00$ 131,100.00$ 67 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 68 CLEARING TREE 86 130.00$ 11,180.00$ 69 GRUBBING TREE 86 130.00$ 11,180.00$ 70 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL PRIVATE YARD LIGHT POLE EACH 13 600.00$ 7,800.00$ 71 REMOVE SIGN EACH 10 70.00$ 700.00$ SUBTOTAL PART 3 - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL PART 3 - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 3 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PHASE 1 (2020 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 72 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 1,405 5.00$ 7,025.00$ 73 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK OR DRIVEWAY SQ FT 4,340 2.50$ 10,850.00$ 74 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 16,410 4.00$ 65,640.00$ 75 REMOVE BITUMINOUS TRAIL OR DRIVEWAY SQ YD 3,000 9.00$ 27,000.00$ 76 TEMPORARY MAILBOX EACH 42 50.00$ 2,100.00$ 77 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX EACH 42 105.00$ 4,410.00$ 78 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SQ YD 18,860 2.00$ 37,720.00$ 79 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) (P)CU YD 21,435 12.50$ 267,937.50$ 80 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) (P) - WALK OR DRIVEWAY CU YD 1,150 17.00$ 19,550.00$ 81 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD 660 17.00$ 11,220.00$ 82 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW TON 28,610 9.00$ 257,490.00$ 83 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 11,050 13.50$ 149,175.00$ 84 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 - WALK, DRIVEWAY, PATCH TON 1,320 17.00$ 22,440.00$ 85 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1,108 2.50$ 2,770.00$ 86 TYPE SPWEA330C WEAR 2" THICK TON 4,190 41.50$ 173,885.00$ 87 TYPE SPWEA240B WEAR 1.5" THICK - DRIVEWAYS TON 570 140.00$ 79,800.00$ 88 FINE FILTER AGGREGATE (LV)CU YD 70 30.00$ 2,100.00$ 89 4" PERFORATED PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 400 11.00$ 4,400.00$ 90 CONNECT INTO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 8 275.00$ 2,200.00$ 91 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH 27 300.00$ 8,100.00$ 92 ADJUST MANHOLE EACH 58 450.00$ 26,100.00$ 93 ADJUST CATCH BASIN EACH 37 175.00$ 6,475.00$ 94 5" CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY SQ FT 4,600 5.00$ 23,000.00$ 95 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, B618 LIN FT 10,670 14.00$ 149,380.00$ 96 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SQ YD 120 83.00$ 9,960.00$ 97 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP SQ FT 460 11.50$ 5,290.00$ 98 TRUNCATED DOME PANEL SQ FT 128 51.00$ 6,528.00$ 99 2" PVC SCH. 40 CONDUIT FOR PRIVATE IRRIGATION LIN FT 682 7.50$ 5,115.00$ 100 4" PVC SCH. 40 CONDUIT FOR PRIVATE UTILITY CROSSING, 3' DEEP LIN FT 210 10.50$ 2,205.00$ 101 DECIDUOUS TREE 2" CAL B&B TREE 79 435.00$ 34,365.00$ Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 4 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PHASE 1 (2020 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 102 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B TREE 22 435.00$ 9,570.00$ 103 PRUNE TREES HOUR 18 235.00$ 4,230.00$ 104 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 39 200.00$ 7,800.00$ 105 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION, NON-STREET EACH 9 200.00$ 1,800.00$ 106 SANDY CLAY LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)CU YD 2,350 32.00$ 75,200.00$ 107 COMPOST GRADE 2 (LV)CU YD 2,350 28.00$ 65,800.00$ 108 SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD 21,330 4.50$ 95,985.00$ 109 TURF ESTABLISHMENT LUMP SUM 1 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 110 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 LB 1,360 1.00$ 1,360.00$ 111 SKID LOADER HOUR 16 130.00$ 2,080.00$ 112 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HOUR 47 130.00$ 6,110.00$ 113 BUTTE AVENUE CLOSURE GATE EACH 2 7,500.00$ 15,000.00$ 1,893,125.50$ 189,313.00$ 2,082,438.50$ 847,721.00$ 699,584.00$ 519,419.50$ 2,082,438.50$ 4,149,163.00$ TOTAL PART 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS PHASE 1 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS SUBTOTAL PART 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL PART 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL PART 2 - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL PART 3 - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 5 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 34,800.00$ 34,800.00$ 2 REMOVE VCP SANITARY SEWER LIN FT 4,865 6.00$ 29,190.00$ 3 REMOVE MANHOLE INCL. CASTING EACH 31 500.00$ 15,500.00$ 4 REMOVE CAST IRON SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LIN FT 2,520 1.50$ 3,780.00$ 5 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, 10'-15' DEEP LIN FT 2,875 42.00$ 120,750.00$ 6 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, 15'-20' DEEP LIN FT 1,900 55.00$ 104,500.00$ 7 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER, 20'-25' DEEP LIN FT 30 90.00$ 2,700.00$ 8 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION TON 65 35.00$ 2,275.00$ 9 8"X4" PVC WYE EACH 63 325.00$ 20,475.00$ 10 FURNISH AND INSTALL 4' DIA MH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-1642 CSTG & HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 41 3,500.00$ 143,500.00$ 11 4' SANITARY MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LIN FT 265 185.00$ 49,025.00$ 12 CONSTRUCT 8" OUTSIDE DROP LIN FT 6 450.00$ 2,700.00$ 13 CONNECT TO EXISTING PIPE EACH 3 2,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 14 FURNISH AND INSTALL I&I BARRIER EACH 41 275.00$ 11,275.00$ 15 RECONNECT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EACH 63 175.00$ 11,025.00$ 16 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LOCATE BOX EACH 63 190.00$ 11,970.00$ 17 4" PVC SCH. 40 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE PIPE LIN FT 2,520 20.00$ 50,400.00$ 18 4" PVC SCH. 80 SANITARY SEWER RISER PIPE LIN FT 130 30.00$ 3,900.00$ 623,765.00$ 62,377.00$ 686,142.00$ PART 2 - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 19 REMOVE WATERMAIN LIN FT 5,180 5.00$ 25,900.00$ 20 REMOVE HYDRANT AND GATE VALVE EACH 9 350.00$ 3,150.00$ 21 REMOVE COPPER WATER SERVICE LIN FT 2,520 1.00$ 2,520.00$ 22 REMOVE CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 63 50.00$ 3,150.00$ 23 TEMPORARY WATER SYSTEM LUMP SUM 1 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 24 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 8 2,100.00$ 16,800.00$ PHASE 2 (2021 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUBTOTAL PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 6 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PHASE 2 (2021 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 25 FURNISH AND INSTALL HYDRANT, 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 11 5,500.00$ 60,500.00$ 26 8" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52, INCL V-BIO LIN FT 5,040 49.00$ 246,960.00$ 27 6" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52, INCL V-BIO LIN FT 110 56.00$ 6,160.00$ 28 8" WATERMAIN VERTICAL OFFSET EACH 3 2,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 29 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN EACH 5 1,750.00$ 8,750.00$ 30 WATERMAIN INSULATION, 3" THICK SQ YD 85 45.00$ 3,825.00$ 31 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LB 3,600 9.50$ 34,200.00$ 32 RECONNECT EXISTING WATER SERVICE EACH 63 155.00$ 9,765.00$ 33 1" TYPE K COPPER WATER SERVICE PIPE LIN FT 2,520 21.00$ 52,920.00$ 34 1" CURB STOP & BOX EACH 63 355.00$ 22,365.00$ 35 1" CORPORATION STOP EACH 63 400.00$ 25,200.00$ 36 WATER SERVICE INSULATION, 3" THICK SQ YD 130 45.00$ 5,850.00$ 570,515.00$ 57,052.00$ 627,567.00$ PART 3 - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 37 REMOVE 12" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 660 10.00$ 6,600.00$ 38 REMOVE 15" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 100 10.50$ 1,050.00$ 39 REMOVE 21" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 300 11.50$ 3,450.00$ 40 REMOVE 27" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 180 15.00$ 2,700.00$ 41 REMOVE 10" - 18" DRIVEWAY CULVERT (VARYING MATERIAL)LIN FT 530 12.00$ 6,360.00$ 42 REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN INCL CASTING EACH 12 750.00$ 9,000.00$ 43 REMOVE FLARED END SECTION EACH 5 300.00$ 1,500.00$ 44 POND EXCAVATION (EV) (P)CU YD 1,200 18.00$ 21,600.00$ 45 12" RC PIPE SEWER, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 85 50.00$ 4,250.00$ 46 15" RC PIPE SEWER, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 2,350 52.00$ 122,200.00$ 47 18" RC PIPE SEWER, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 390 58.00$ 22,620.00$ 48 21" RC PIPE SEWER, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 750 61.00$ 45,750.00$ 49 21" RC PIPE SEWER, 10'-15' DEEP LIN FT 140 65.00$ 9,100.00$ SUBTOTAL PART 2 - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL PART 2 - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 7 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PHASE 2 (2021 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 50 24" RC PIPE SEWER, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 680 67.00$ 45,560.00$ 51 33" RC PIPE SEWER, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 390 80.00$ 31,200.00$ 52 15" RC PIPE DRIVEWAY CULVERT, 0'-10' DEEP LIN FT 180 55.00$ 9,900.00$ 53 2'x3' CB INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 13 2,250.00$ 29,250.00$ 54 4' DIA STORM MH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-1642 CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 8 2,850.00$ 22,800.00$ 55 4' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 21 2,950.00$ 61,950.00$ 56 4' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-4342 CSTG AND CONCRETE STOOL EACH 4 2,950.00$ 11,800.00$ 57 5' DIA STORM MH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-1642 CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 6 4,250.00$ 25,500.00$ 58 5' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 8 4,500.00$ 36,000.00$ 59 6' DIA STORM MH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-1642 CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 60 6' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 2 5,250.00$ 10,500.00$ 61 7' DIA STORM CBMH, 8' DEEP, INCL R-3290-VB CSTG AND HDPE ADJ RINGS EACH 2 5,750.00$ 11,500.00$ 62 4' STORM MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LIN FT 2 185.00$ 370.00$ 63 5' STORM MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LIN FT 3 250.00$ 750.00$ 64 7' STORM MANHOLE OVERDEPTH LIN FT 4 400.00$ 1,600.00$ 65 15" FLARED END SECTION W/TRASH GUARD FOR DRIVEWAY CULVERT EACH 10 1,250.00$ 12,500.00$ 66 12" FLARED END SECTION W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 1,250.00$ 1,250.00$ 67 15" FLARED END SECTION W/TRASH GUARD EACH 2 1,750.00$ 3,500.00$ 68 18" FLARED END SECTION W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 69 24" FLARED END SECTION W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 70 33" FLARED END SECTION W/TRASH GUARD EACH 1 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 71 RANDOM RIP RAP CU YD 80 105.00$ 8,400.00$ 72 CONNECT TO EXISTING PIPE EACH 3 1,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 598,010.00$ 59,801.00$ 657,811.00$ SUBTOTAL PART 3 - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL PART 3 - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 8 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PHASE 2 (2021 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE PART 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS 73 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 125,100.00$ 125,100.00$ 74 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 14,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 75 CLEARING TREE 105 130.00$ 13,650.00$ 76 GRUBBING TREE 105 130.00$ 13,650.00$ 77 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL PRIVATE YARD LIGHT POLE EACH 6 600.00$ 3,600.00$ 78 REMOVE SIGN EACH 9 70.00$ 630.00$ 79 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 950 5.00$ 4,750.00$ 80 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK OR DRIVEWAY SQ FT 7,150 2.50$ 17,875.00$ 81 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 15,640 4.00$ 62,560.00$ 82 REMOVE BITUMINOUS TRAIL OR DRIVEWAY SQ YD 2,750 9.00$ 24,750.00$ 83 TEMPORARY MAILBOX EACH 68 50.00$ 3,400.00$ 84 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX EACH 68 105.00$ 7,140.00$ 85 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SQ YD 17,110 2.00$ 34,220.00$ 86 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) (P)CU YD 17,730 12.50$ 221,625.00$ 87 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) (P) - WALK OR DRIVEWAY CU YD 1,100 17.00$ 18,700.00$ 88 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD 590 17.00$ 10,030.00$ 89 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW TON 25,960 9.00$ 233,640.00$ 90 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 10,100 13.50$ 136,350.00$ 91 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 - WALK, DRIVEWAY, PATCH TON 1,220 17.00$ 20,740.00$ 92 MIX AND FINISH AGGREGATE BASE (GREYLOCK COURT)SQ YD 1,500 2.00$ 3,000.00$ 93 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 1,060 2.50$ 2,650.00$ 94 TYPE SPWEA330C WEAR 2" THICK TON 3,980 41.50$ 165,170.00$ 95 TYPE SPWEA240B WEAR 1.5" THICK - DRIVEWAYS TON 540 140.00$ 75,600.00$ 96 FINE FILTER AGGREGATE (LV)CU YD 185 30.00$ 5,550.00$ 97 4" PERFORATED PE PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 1,100 11.00$ 12,100.00$ 98 CONNECT INTO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 26 275.00$ 7,150.00$ 99 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH 20 300.00$ 6,000.00$ 100 ADJUST MANHOLE EACH 61 450.00$ 27,450.00$ 101 ADJUST CATCH BASIN EACH 46 175.00$ 8,050.00$ Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 9 Item No.Item Unit Estimated Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Price PHASE 2 (2021 CONSTRUCTION) PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 102 5" CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY SQ FT 7,150 5.00$ 35,750.00$ 103 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, B618 LIN FT 10,700 14.00$ 149,800.00$ 104 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SQ YD 120 83.00$ 9,960.00$ 105 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP SQ FT 160 11.50$ 1,840.00$ 106 TRUNCATED DOME PANEL SQ FT 32 51.00$ 1,632.00$ 107 2" PVC SCH. 40 CONDUIT FOR PRIVATE IRRIGATION LIN FT 220 7.50$ 1,650.00$ 108 4" PVC SCH. 40 CONDUIT FOR PRIVATE UTILITY CROSSING, 3' DEEP LIN FT 180 10.50$ 1,890.00$ 109 DECIDUOUS TREE 2" CAL B&B TREE 90 435.00$ 39,150.00$ 110 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B TREE 15 435.00$ 6,525.00$ 111 PRUNE TREES HOUR 25 235.00$ 5,875.00$ 112 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 50 200.00$ 10,000.00$ 113 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION, NON-STREET EACH 4 200.00$ 800.00$ 114 SANDY CLAY LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)CU YD 2,210 32.00$ 70,720.00$ 115 COMPOST GRADE 2 (LV)CU YD 2,210 28.00$ 61,880.00$ 116 SODDING TYPE LAWN SQ YD 20,200 4.50$ 90,900.00$ 117 TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT CATEGORY 2 SQ YD 15 30.00$ 450.00$ 118 TURF ESTABLISHMENT LUMP SUM 1 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 119 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 LB 1,270 1.00$ 1,270.00$ 120 SKID LOADER HOUR 25 130.00$ 3,250.00$ 121 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HOUR 65 130.00$ 8,450.00$ 1,792,922.00$ 179,292.00$ 1,972,214.00$ 686,142.00$ 627,567.00$ 657,811.00$ 1,972,214.00$ 3,943,734.00$ SUBTOTAL PART 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS PHASE 2 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL PART 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL PART 1 - SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL PART 2 - WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL PART 3 - STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL PART 4 - STREET IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prepared by: Bolton Menk, Inc. 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements | 2020-101 Appendix A - Page 10 Appendix B – Geotechnical Evaluation Table of Contents Description Page A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 A.1. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 A.2. Site Conditions and History ................................................................................................. 2 A.3. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 2 A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents .......................................................... 2 A.5. Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 3 B. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 4 B.1. Geologic Overview .............................................................................................................. 4 B.2. Boring Results ...................................................................................................................... 4 B.3. Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 7 B.4. Laboratory Test Results ....................................................................................................... 7 B.4.a. Moisture Contents ................................................................................................. 7 B.4.b. Atterberg Limits ...................................................................................................... 7 B.4.c. Percent Passing the #200 Sieve Tests .................................................................... 8 C. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 8 C.1. Design and Construction Discussion ................................................................................... 8 C.1.a. General ................................................................................................................... 8 C.1.b. Utility Invert Elevations .......................................................................................... 8 C.1.c. Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 8 C.1.d. Reuse of On-Site Soils ............................................................................................. 8 C.1.e. Impacts on Adjacent Utility Lines ........................................................................... 9 C.1.f. Vibrations during Construction .............................................................................. 9 C.2. Utility Installation ................................................................................................................ 9 C.2.a. Utility Subgrade Stabilization ................................................................................. 9 C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing ............................................................................................. 9 C.2.c. Excavated Slopes .................................................................................................... 9 C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering ......................................................................................... 10 C.2.e. Corrosion Potential .............................................................................................. 10 C.2.f. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction .......................................................... 10 C.3. Pavements ......................................................................................................................... 11 C.3.a. Pavement Subgrade Preparation ......................................................................... 11 C.3.b. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll .............................................................................. 12 C.3.c. Design Sections .................................................................................................... 12 C.3.d. Bituminous Pavement Materials .......................................................................... 13 C.3.e. Performance and Maintenance ........................................................................... 13 C.3.f. Miscellaneous Bituminous Recommendations .................................................... 14 C.4. Vibrations during Construction ......................................................................................... 14 D. Procedures...................................................................................................................................... 14 D.1. Penetration Test Borings ................................................................................................... 14 D.2. Exploration Logs ................................................................................................................ 15 D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets ............................................................................................. 15 D.2.b. Geologic Origins ................................................................................................... 15 D.3. Material Classification and Testing ................................................................................... 15 D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification .......................................................................... 15 D.3.b. Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 15 Table of Contents (continued) Description Page D.4. Groundwater Measurements ............................................................................................ 16 E. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................. 16 E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 16 E.1.a. Material Strata ..................................................................................................... 16 E.1.b. Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................. 16 E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility .......................................................................... 16 E.2.a. Plan Review .......................................................................................................... 16 E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing ............................................................... 17 E.3. Use of Report..................................................................................................................... 17 E.4. Standard of Care ................................................................................................................ 17 Appendix Soil Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets (ST-1 to ST-25) Descriptive Terminology of Soil A. Introduction A.1. Project Description This Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the proposed design and construction of the 2020 Street and Utility Improvements, located in Apple Valley, Minnesota. The project will include the reconstruction and replacement of utilities on Cimarron Circle, Cimarron Road, Yancey Court, Cimarron Court, Greylock Court, Surrey Trail South, and Surrey Trail North. We were not provided traffic volumes at the time of this report; however, we assume the streets will be designed to City of Apple Valley standards. The figure below shows an illustration of the proposed 2020 Street & Utility Improvements project area with the boring locations denoted by yellow circles. Figure 1. Project Area Figure extracted from Boring Location Sketch provided by the City of Apple Valley. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 2 A.2. Site Conditions and History Currently, the project area exists as low volume residential streets surrounded by single-family homes. Construction of the single-family homes in the project area appears to have occurred between 1960 and 1975 based on a review of publicly available Dakota County property information. Current grades at our boring locations range from 1012.7 at Boring ST-13 to 1058.2 at Boring ST-23. Generally, the site has rolling topography with numerous hills throughout the area, with a slight downward slope towards the northwest. A.3. Purpose The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation is to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected borehole locations, evaluate their impact, and provide recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed street and utility improvements. A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents We reviewed the following information:  Soil Boring Location Sketch prepared by the City of Apple Valley dated August 15, 2018.  Dakota County on-line Graphical Information System (http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/).  Aerial images of the site available from Google Earth®.  Atlas C-6, Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota prepared by the Minnesota Geological Survey and dated 1990. We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 3 A.5. Scope of Services We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Proposal for a Geotechnical Evaluation to the City of Apple Valley (City), dated August 20, 2018, and authorized on September 5, 2018. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services.  Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited.  Coordinating the clearing of exploration locations of underground utilities. The City selected and staked the exploration locations. We acquired the surface elevations and locations with GPS technology using the State of Minnesota’s permanent GPS base station network. The Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the borings.  Performing 25 standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-1 to ST-25, to nominal depths of 14 1/2 feet below grade.  Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analysis.  Recommendations for preparing utility and pavement subgrades, including excavation support, if applicable, and the selection, placement and compaction of excavation backfill and other structural fill.  Recommendations for the pavement section design thicknesses. Our scope of services did not include environmental services or testing, and we did not train the personnel performing this evaluation to provide environmental services or testing. We can provide these services or testing at your request. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 4 B. Results B.1. Geologic Overview We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, laboratory testing, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic history for the site. B.2. Boring Results Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the pavement section thicknesses and subsurface soil profile, in the general order we encountered the strata. Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details related to the soil borings performed. Table 1. Pavement Section Summary Location Boring Number Bituminous Thickness (in) Apparent Aggregate Base Thickness (in) Cimarron Road ST-1 4 12 ST-2 4 8 Cimarron Circle ST-3 6 12 Cimarron Road ST-4 3 10 Yancey Court ST-5 6 6 Cimarron Road ST-6 5 9 ST-7 4 11 ST-8 5 10 ST-9 4 11 ST-10 10 * ST-11 5 10 ST-12 5 10 City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 5 Location Boring Number Bituminous Thickness (in) Apparent Aggregate Base Thickness (in) Greylock Court ST-13 3 8 Cimarron Road ST-14 4 7 ST-15 3 10 Cimarron Court ST-16 4 7 Cimarron Road ST-17 3 8 ST-18 4 7 ST-19 3 1/2 9 ST-20 3 8 Surrey Trail South ST-21 3 8 ST-22 4 7 Surrey Trail North ST-23 4 7 ST-24 4 8 Cimarron Road ST-25 5 7 Average Thicknesses 4 9 *The aggregate base layer was indiscernible from the underlying material in the field at this location. Apparent aggregate base materials encountered consisted of reclaimed pavement materials and may not meet MnDOT specifications for Class 5. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 6 Table 2. Subsurface Profile Summary Strata Soil Type - ASTM Classification Range of Penetration Resistances Commentary and Details Pavement Section --- ---  See Table 1 above. Fill SP-SM, SM, SC, ML 4 to 33 blows per foot (BPF)  General penetration resistance of 10 to 20 BPF.  Moisture condition generally moist.  Extended to depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet below the existing surface.  Variable amounts of gravel.  Variable compaction.  Portions of the fill contained trace organic material. Buried Topsoil SC, CL 6 to7 BPF  Encountered below the fill at Borings ST-2, ST-8, ST-11, ST-19,  A petroleum odor was detected within the buried topsoil of ST-11 at a depth of 5 feet. Glaciofluvium ML, CL 3 to 13 BPF  General penetration resistance of 4 to 8 BPF.  Moisture condition generally moist. Glacial Outwash SP, SP-SM 3 to 30 BPF  General penetration resistance of 5 to 10 BPF.  Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles and boulders based on the auger chatter noted by the drill crew.  Moisture condition generally moist. Glacial Till SM, SC, ML, CL 2 to 35 BPF  General penetration resistance of 5 to 15 BPF.  Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles and boulders based on the auger chatter noted by the drill crew.  Moisture condition generally moist. For simplicity in this report, we define existing fill to mean existing, uncontrolled or undocumented fill. As noted in the table above, a petroleum odor was noted in Boring ST-11 at a depth of 5 feet below the surface. While it is not anticipated that this project will expose, or be impacted by these soils, the City should be aware of the presence of these materials as future work may be impacted. We can provide assistance if the City would like to be consulted regarding management of these materials. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 7 B.3. Groundwater Groundwater was observed while advancing three of our soil borings. In the borings where groundwater was not observed, it appears the groundwater level is below the depths explored. The soil borings indicate a layered soil profile that is conducive for encountering perched water conditions. Based on a review of the Minnesota Well Index in the project area, the observed groundwater appears to be perched. Table 3 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix also include this information and additional details. Project planning should anticipate seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater. Table 3. Groundwater Summary Location Surface Elevation Measured or Estimated Depth to Groundwater (ft) Corresponding Groundwater Elevation (ft) ST-1 1029.5 20 1009 1/2 ST-11 1052.1 13 1039 ST-13 1012.7 14 998 1/2 B.4. Laboratory Test Results B.4.a. Moisture Contents We performed moisture content (MC) tests (per ASTM D2216) on selected samples to aid in our classifications and estimations of the materials’ engineering properties. The moisture contents for the soils overall ranged from 2 to 28 percent, with an average moisture content of about 2 to 13 percent in the existing roadway subgrade soils. The Log of Boring Sheets attached in the Appendix present the results of the moisture content tests in the “MC” column. B.4.b. Atterberg Limits We performed an Atterberg limit test (per ASTM D4318) on a selected sample to aid in classification. The results of the Atterberg limits tests indicated the soils tested had liquid limits (LL) of 31 percent, plastic limits (PL) of 22 percent, and plasticity index (PI) of 9 percent, indicating the tested soils were lean clay (CL). The plasticity indices suggest a moderate potential for shrinking/swelling with changes in their moisture content. The Log of Boring sheets list the results of Atterberg limit test in the “Tests or Notes” column. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 8 B.4.c. Percent Passing the #200 Sieve Tests We performed tests to evaluate the percent of particles passing the #200 sieve (P200) (per ASTM D1140) to estimate the engineering properties of the granular material. The results of these tests indicated the soils encountered had P200s ranging from 7 to 58 percent. The Log of Boring sheets list the results of P200 tests in the “Tests or Notes” column. C. Recommendations C.1. Design and Construction Discussion C.1.a. General We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed construction to the extent it was reported to us by others. Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may have been made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. C.1.b. Utility Invert Elevations The soils at anticipated invert elevations appear suitable for support of utilities and generally consist of glacially deposited soils. However, based on experience with similar projects, soft clayey or silty soils may not be suitable for pipe support when excavated. Additional subcutting may be required to support utilities disturbed by construction activities. C.1.c. Groundwater We observed limited groundwater in the borings. Where we observed groundwater, it appeared to be perched. Some of the soils, such as silty sands, clayey sands and clay, will collect water from precipitation or if water drains to the site. We recommend the contractor remove any water that collects in work areas before performing further work. Based upon the boring observations, we anticipate sump pumps would be suitable for temporary dewatering. C.1.d. Reuse of On-Site Soils The majority of the onsite inorganic soils appear suitable for reuse as engineered fill within utility trenches and pavement subgrades. If organic soils or buried topsoil is encountered within the trenches, City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 9 they should be segregated and removed. This may require import of additional soils to achieve planned subgrade elevations. C.1.e. Impacts on Adjacent Utility Lines The soils on site are a mixture of sandy and silty/clayey soils at depth, and excavations to remove and install the new sewer line will be wide due to sloughing of the sandy soils. The contractor should be aware of these conditions and take precautions to support any in-place utilities throughout construction. C.1.f. Vibrations during Construction Construction and backfill operations may induce vibrations on neighboring structures. Excessive ground vibration levels can cause cosmetic damage to structures, or in rare cases structural damage. We recommend precondition surveys of adjacent structures as well as monitoring of ground vibrations during construction. C.2. Utility Installation C.2.a. Utility Subgrade Stabilization We anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support. However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions such as soft clay or silts, organic soils or perched water at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. If crushed rock is used as pipe bedding, we recommend wrapping the aggregate in geotextile fabric to prevent the migration of fine-grained materials into the voids of the aggregate. C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing When removing unsuitable materials below structures or pavements, we recommend the excavation extend outward and downward at a slope of 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. C.2.c. Excavated Slopes Based on the borings, we anticipate the majority of on-site soils in excavations will consist of granular glacial deposits. These soils are typically considered Type C Soil under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines. OSHA guidelines indicate unsupported excavations in Type C soils should have a gradient no steeper than 1 1/2H:1V. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. OSHA requires an engineer to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 10 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. C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering Some of the soils, such as silty sands, and clayey sands, will collect water from precipitation or if water drains to the site. We recommend the contractor remove any water that collects in work areas before performing further work. Based upon the boring observations, we anticipate sumps and pumps would be suitable for temporary dewatering. C.2.e. Corrosion Potential A majority of the soil borings indicated the site predominantly consists of sandy soils. We consider these soils non- to slightly corrosive to metallic conduits. If utilities extend through organics or clay soils, we recommend bedding the utilities in sandy soil free of any clay lumps or constructing the utilities with non-corrosive materials. C.2.f. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction We recommend using existing on site soils as backfill material. If imported material is to be used, Table 4 contains our recommendations for engineered fill. Note that similar materials compared to existing should be used. Importing different soils for backfill may create lenses that could trap water. Table 4. Engineered Fill Materials* Locations To Be Used Engineered Fill Classification Possible Soil Type Descriptions Gradation Additional Requirements Pavements, Utility Trench Backfill Pavement fill SP, SM, SC, CL 100% passing 2-inch sieve Organic Content (OC) < 2% Plasticity Index (PI) < 15% Below landscaped surfaces, where subsidence is not a concern Non-structural fill SP, SM, SC, ML, CL 100% passing 6-inch sieve OC < 10% *More select soils comprised of coarse sands with < 5% passing #200 sieve may be needed to accommodate work occurring in periods of wet or freezing weather. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 11 We recommend spreading engineered fill in loose lifts of approximately 12 inches thick. We recommend compacting engineered fill in accordance with the criteria presented below in Table 5. The project documents should specify relative compaction of engineered fill, based on the structure located above the engineered fill, and vertical proximity to that structure. Table 5. Compaction Recommendations Summary Reference Relative Compaction, percent (ASTM D698 – Standard Proctor) Moisture Content Variance from Optimum, percentage points < 12% Passing #200 Sieve (Typically SP, SP-SM) > 12% Passing #200 Sieve (Typically CL, SC, ML, SM) Within 3 feet of pavement subgrade 100 ±3 -1 to +3 More than 3 feet below pavement subgrade 95 ±3 ±3 Below landscaped surfaces 90 ±5 ±4 *Increase compaction requirement to meet compaction required for structure supported by this engineered fill. The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as engineered fill or to place engineered fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during construction. We recommend performing density tests in engineered fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively compacting the soil and meeting project requirements. C.3. Pavements C.3.a. Pavement Subgrade Preparation We recommend the following steps for pavement subgrade preparation, understanding the reconstruction will generally match existing grades. Note that project planning may need to require additional subcuts to limit frost heave. 1. Strip existing structures, pavements, and aggregate base section from the area. 2. Have a geotechnical representative observe the excavated subgrade to evaluate if additional subgrade improvements are necessary. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 12 3. Surface compact to at least 100 percent of Standard Proctor density. 4. Place pavement engineered fill to grade where required and compact in accordance with Section C.2.e to bottom of pavement section. 5. Proofroll the pavement subgrade as described in Section C.2.g. Due to the generally granular nature of the soils it may be necessary to place a portion of the aggregate base to facilitate truck traffic. Note, we recommend sloping subgrade soils to promote drainage and removal of accumulated water. C.3.b. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll As the site soils at anticipated pavement subgrade are sands with variable amounts of fine particles, a proofroll will be difficult to perform. Therefore, we recommend observing surface compaction of pavement subgrade followed by a proofroll when the aggregate base section is in place. Compaction tests could also be taken on the subgrade soils prior to the placement of the aggregate base. The contractor should correct areas that display excessive yielding or rutting during the proofroll, as determined by the geotechnical representative. Possible options for subgrade correction include moisture conditioning and recompaction, and/or subcutting and replacement with soil or crushed aggregate. C.3.c. Design Sections Our scope of services for this project did not include laboratory tests on subgrade soils to determine an R-value for pavement design. Based on our experience with similar silty sand/clayey sand soils anticipated at the pavement subgrade elevation, we recommend pavement design assume an R-value of 30. Note the contractor may need to perform limited removal of unsuitable or less suitable soils to achieve this value. Table 6 provides standard city pavement sections. Based on the encountered soils and recommendations above, this section appears adequate to support the anticipated traffic volumes. Table 6. Recommended Bituminous Pavement Sections (Matches City Standards) Layer Thickness (inches) Bituminous Wearing Course 2 Bituminous Base Course 2 Aggregate Base 8 City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 13 C.3.d. Bituminous Pavement Materials We recommend specifying crushed aggregate base meeting the requirements of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Specification 3138 for Class 5. We recommend that the bituminous wear and non-wear courses meet the requirements of Specifications 2360, with the following designations in accordance with the City Standard Plates:  Wear: SPWEA330C  Non-wear: SPNWA330C In the above mixes, aggregate A (as in SPWEA330C), a 1/2-inch maximum size, will provide a surface with less visible aggregate than B (3/4-inch maximum size). We recommend asphalt grade C (as in SPWEA330C), or 58-34. Additional resistance to rutting, scuffing and dimpling can be obtained with a 64-28/E grade asphalt. We recommend compacting the aggregate base to meet the requirements of MnDOT Specification 2211.3.D.2.c (Penetration Index Method for the dynamic cone penetrometer [DCP]). We recommend compacting bituminous pavements to at least 92 percent of their maximum theoretical (Rice) density. C.3.e. Performance and Maintenance We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life for bituminous. This is the amount of time before we anticipate the pavement will require reconstruction. This performance life assumes routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance. It is common to place the non-wear course of bituminous and then delay placement of wear course. For this situation, we recommend evaluating if the reduced pavement section will have sufficient structure to support construction traffic. Many conditions affect the overall performance of the exterior slabs and pavements. Some of these conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. With regard to bituminous pavements in particular, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the first few years of placement, and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in exterior slabs and pavements to lessen the potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting and softening of the subgrade. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 14 C.3.f. Miscellaneous Bituminous Recommendations When placing new pavement next to in-place pavement, we recommend providing a full-depth sawcut to ensure a uniform joint. We recommend tack coat between all bituminous layers and prior to placing any bituminous mixtures on existing pavement in accordance with MnDOT Specification 2357. C.4. Vibrations during Construction Vibrations generated during construction activities may be transmitted to adjoining structures. Excessive ground vibration levels can cause cosmetic damage to structures, or in rare cases structural damage. Structural damage can occur at lower levels as the result of vibrations densifying loose soils (dewatered sand) which results in subsidence of foundations, slabs and site features. Even if vibration levels during construction may not necessarily cause damage, it has been our experience that vibration related complaints and damage claims tend to increase when vibration levels become noticeable or are annoying. For this reason, we recommend vibration levels can be monitored during construction to better evaluate complaints. We recommend also considering a pre-construction survey on structures within the affected area to document existing conditions. A comparative post-construction survey can then be performed if damage claims are filed. D. Procedures D.1. Penetration Test Borings We drilled the penetration test borings with a truck-mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow- stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 15 D.2. Exploration Logs D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance tests performed. The logs also present the results of laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples and groundwater measurements. We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings. Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions. D.2.b. Geologic Origins We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (3) penetration resistance testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and (5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past. D.3. Material Classification and Testing D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we used. D.3.b. Laboratory Testing The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. The remaining laboratory test results follow the exploration logs. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM or AASHTO procedures. City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 16 D.4. Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then filled the boreholes, as noted on the boring logs. E. Qualifications E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions E.1.a. Material Strata We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them. E.1.b. Groundwater Levels We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors. E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility E.2.a. Plan Review We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made a number of assumptions to help us develop our recommendations. We should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the City of Apple Valley Project B1809303 October 12, 2018 Page 17 designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations. E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the preparation of this report and to accept the construction-related geotechnical engineer-of-record responsibilities. E.3. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. E.4. Standard of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Appendix o 0 300150Feet 11001 Hampshire Avenue SMinneapolis, MN 55438952.995.2000braunintertec.com Figure 1 Project No:B1809303 Drawing No: CMF9/10/2018KZ10/3/2018 Apple Valley 2020Street and UtilityImprovements Various streets north ofPalomino Drive, westof Cedar Avenue Apple Valley,Minnesota BoringLocationSketch !U Approximate Location ofStandard Penetration TestBoring B1809303_Borsktch Drawn By:Date Drawn:Checked By:Last Modified:F:\2018\B1809303\GIS\B1809303_Borsktch.mxd^_ Dakota County !U!U !U !U!U !U !U !U !U !U !U !U !U !U!U !U !U!U!U !U !U !U !U !U !U C h a p a r r al Ci rChaparralCtY a n c ey Ct Hidden M e a d owCtDiamondDrSable Dr CimarronCt 1 2 8 t h St S w e et waterDrCim arro n C irSabra CtButteAvePennock AvePonyLnESurrey Trl N ShastaCtChaparralDr Bea u m o n t Ct SurreyTrl S GrandviewTerP a l o m i n o D r C i marronRdHiddenMeadowRd 127TH STPALOMINODR P A L O M E N O D R P A L O M IN O D R ¬«77 §¨¦35E ST-24ST-23 ST-25 ST-20ST-21 ST-19 ST-22 ST-18 ST-17 ST-14 ST-15 ST-16 ST-11 ST-13ST-12 ST-7 ST-10ST-9ST-8 ST-5 ST-1 ST-6 ST-4 ST-2 ST-3 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community 1 inch = 300 feet Drawing Information Project Information 12 12 22 4 4 2 2* 8 3 Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Benchmark: Elevations were obtained using GPS and the State of Minnesota's permanent base station network. *No set. An open triangle in the water level (WL) column indicates the depth at which groundwater was observed while drilling. Groundwater levels fluctuate. PAV FILL FILL SC SC CL SM ML 4 inches of bituminous over 12 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, medium-grained, with Gravel, trace organics, brown to dark gray, moist. FILL: Clayey Sand, with Gravel, grayish brown, moist. CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, trace fibers, with Gravel, gray, moist, very loose. (Glacial Till) CLAYEY SAND, little Gravel, gray, moist, very loose. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, little Gravel, grayish brown, moist, very soft to medium. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose. (Glacial Till) SILT, brown and gray mottled, wet, soft. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 20 feet while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout. 1028.1 1025.5 1022.5 1019.5 1016.0 1011.5 1009.5 1008.5 1.4 4.0 7.0 10.0 13.5 18.0 20.0 21.0 9/13/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-1 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 2' SW of staked location. N: 207200, E: 523261. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-1 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1029.5 Depth feet 0.0 15 10 5 7 7 5 14* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL FILL FILL CL CL CL 4 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Clayey Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, dark gray to brown, moist. FILL: Clayey Sand, with Gravel, trace organics, brown with some black, moist. FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, little Gravel, gray, moist, soft. SANDY LEAN CLAY, slightly organic, black, moist. (Buried Topsoil) SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, dark brown, moist, medium. (Glacial Till) LEAN CLAY, gray, moist, medium to stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1019.5 1016.5 1013.5 1011.5 1010.0 1008.5 1006.0 1.0 4.0 7.0 9.0 10.5 12.0 14.5 9/13/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-2 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 207452, E: 522981. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-2 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1020.5 Depth feet 0.0 24 11 10 18 18 17 21* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL FILL SC SM 6 inches of bituminous over 12 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist. CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1012.9 1011.9 1007.4 1005.4 999.9 1.5 2.5 7.0 9.0 14.5 9/13/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-3 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 3 1/2' S of staked location. N: 207326, E: 522572. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-3 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1014.4 Depth feet 0.0 21 8 8 10 35* 22 23* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *Poor recovery. Auger chatter at 10 feet. *No set. PAV FILL CL SM CL 3 inches of bituminous over 10 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Clayey Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, gray to brown, moist. LEAN CLAY, gray, moist, medium to stiff. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and seams of Clayey Sand, brown, moist, medium dense to dense. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist, stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1016.2 1012.3 1007.8 1003.8 1002.8 1.1 5.0 9.5 13.5 14.5 9/13/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-4 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 207651, E: 522936. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-4 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1017.3 Depth feet 0.0 33 12 11 6 14 19 24* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL ML SM 6 inches of bituminous over 6 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown and gray mottled, moist. SANDY SILT, gray with iron oxide stains, moist, medium. (Glaciofluvium) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, brown with iron oxide stains, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1030.6 1024.6 1022.6 1017.1 1.0 7.0 9.0 14.5 9/13/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-5 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 5' S of staked location. N: 207685, E: 523171. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-5 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1031.6 Depth feet 0.0 11 6 3 13 8 8 19* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 11 feet. *No set. PAV FILL SM ML CL SM 5 inches of bituminous over 9 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Clayey Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and lenses of Silty Sand, brown to gray, moist. SILTY SAND, fine-grained, trace Gravel and fibers, brown, moist, very loose. (Glacial Till) SANDY SILT, trace fibers, gray, moist, stiff. (Glacial Till) LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1011.2 1007.4 1005.4 1003.4 999.4 997.9 1.2 5.0 7.0 9.0 13.0 14.5 9/13/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-6 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208058, E: 522993. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-6 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1012.4 Depth feet 0.0 17 11 4 13 10 8 8* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL SM SM SM 4 inches of bituminous over 11 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown to dark brown, moist. SILTY SAND, fine-grained, with Gravel, gray and brown mottled with iron oxide stains, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with seams of Clayey Sand, brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1018.3 1012.6 1009.6 1006.1 1005.1 1.3 7.0 10.0 13.5 14.5 9/13/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-7 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208151, E: 523130. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-7 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1019.6 Depth feet 0.0 21 8 8 6 4 7 6* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL SC SM SC 5 inches of bituminous over 10 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Clayey Sand, with Gravel and lenses of Silty Sand, brown, moist. CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, trace fibers and Gravel, black, moist. (Buried Topsoil) SILTY SAND, fine-grained, dark brown, moist, very loose. (Glacial Till) CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose to loose. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1034.3 1028.6 1026.6 1023.6 1021.1 1.3 7.0 9.0 12.0 14.5 9/13/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-8 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 8' W of staked location. N: 208087, E: 523317. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-8 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1035.6 Depth feet 0.0 25 12 7 7 8 9 9* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 4 feet. *No set. PAV FILL SP- SM 4 inches of bituminous over 11 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-grained, with Gravel, brown, dry. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Outwash) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1050.7 1047.0 1037.5 1.3 5.0 14.5 9/14/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-9 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208084, E: 523567. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-9 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:54Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1052.0 Depth feet 0.0 17 7 16 30 17 17 18* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 7 1/2 feet. *No set. PAV FILL SM SP- SM SM 10 inches of bituminous. FILL: Clayey Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, dark gray to brown, dry to moist. SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, dense. (Glacial Outwash) SILTY SAND, little Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1057.3 1054.1 1051.1 1048.1 1043.6 0.8 4.0 7.0 10.0 14.5 9/14/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-10 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 6' W of staked location. N: 208093, E: 523792. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-10 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1058.1 Depth feet 0.0 20 10 7 19 9 10 9* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Petroleum odor detected in cuttings at 5 feet. *No set. PAV FILL CL CL SC SM 5 inches of bituminous over 10 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, with Gravel, brown to gray, moist. LEAN CLAY, trace fibers and roots, black, moist. (Buried Topsoil) LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, moist, medium. (Glacial Till) CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, dark gray to brown, moist, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Till) With a seam of Poorly Graded Sand at 12 feet. SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, wet, loose. (Glacial Outwash) END OF BORING. Water observed at 13 feet while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1050.8 1048.1 1046.6 1045.1 1039.1 1037.6 1.3 4.0 5.5 7.0 13.0 14.5 9/14/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-11 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 6' W of staked location. N: 208141, E: 524096. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-11 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1052.1 Depth feet 0.0 21 8 7 4 4 9 5* 4 Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL SM SC CL CL CL 5 inches of bituminous over 10 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Clayey Sand, with a root at 2 feet, brown, moist. SILTY SAND, fine-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, dark brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, soft. (Glaciofluvium) LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, soft. (Glaciofluvium) LEAN CLAY, gray and brown mottled with iron oxide stains, moist, soft to medium. (Glaciofluvium) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout. 1032.6 1031.9 1028.4 1026.9 1024.9 1021.4 1017.9 1.3 2.0 5.5 7.0 9.0 12.5 16.0 9/14/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-12 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208032, E: 524406. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-12 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1033.9 Depth feet 0.0 25 22 31 8 4 5 11* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL FILL CL CL 3 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist. SANDY LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, gray and brown mottled, moist, soft to medium. (Glacial Till) LEAN CLAY, brown and gray mottled, moist to wet at 14 feet, soft to stiff. (Glaciofluvium) With a lens of Silty Sand at 14 feet. END OF BORING. Water observed at 14 feet while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1011.8 1010.7 1005.7 1000.7 998.2 0.9 2.0 7.0 12.0 14.5 9/14/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-13 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 6' NE of staked location. N: 208038, E: 524941. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-13 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1012.7 Depth feet 0.0 18 16 13 14 7 12 13* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 8 feet. Auger chatter at 11 feet. *No set. PAV FILL FILL ML SC CL SM 4 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Clayey Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, gray to brown, moist. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, gray, moist. SILT, gray, moist, stiff. (Glaciofluvium) CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown and gray, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) LEAN CLAY, light gray with iron oxide stains, moist, medium. (Glaciofluvium) SILTY SAND, fine-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1013.5 1011.4 1009.4 1007.4 1004.4 1002.4 999.9 0.9 3.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 12.0 14.5 9/14/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-14 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 5' NW of staked location. N: 208268, E: 524625. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-14 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1014.4 Depth feet 0.0 20 9 4 4 9 11 12* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 11 feet. *No set. PAV FILL SM SP- SM SM SP- SM 3 inches of bituminous over 10 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist. SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, very loose. (Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, light brown, moist, very loose to loose. (Glacial Outwash) SILTY SAND, fine-grained, light brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1015.6 1012.7 1008.7 1004.7 1003.7 1002.2 1.1 4.0 8.0 12.0 13.0 14.5 9/14/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-15 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 2' W of staked location. N: 208456, E: 524444. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-15 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1016.7 Depth feet 0.0 23 9 5 10 14 15 15* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter from 11 to 12 feet. *No set. PAV FILL FILL SP- SM SM SP 4 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Clayey Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, dark gray to brown, moist. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, with seams of Clayey Sand, brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Outwash) SILTY SAND, trace Gravel, with lenses of Sand, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1012.7 1011.6 1009.6 1006.6 1004.6 999.1 0.9 2.0 4.0 7.0 9.0 14.5 9/18/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-16 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208617, E: 524076. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-16 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1013.6 Depth feet 0.0 18 9 6 9 11 11 14* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 11 feet. *No set. PAV FILL SC SP- SM 3 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, trace Gravel, brown, moist. CLAYEY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1032.3 1031.2 1028.2 1018.7 0.9 2.0 5.0 14.5 9/17/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-17 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208510, E: 524722. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-17 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1033.2 Depth feet 0.0 36 14 8 9 6 6 12* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL FILL FILL FILL SM SM 4 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, trace fibers, dark gray, moist. FILL: Silty Sand, fine-grained, with pieces of wood and seams of topsoil, black to brown, moist. FILL: Silty Sand, trace organics, grayish brown, moist. SILTY SAND, trace fibers, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) With roots at 13 feet. SILTY SAND, fine-grained, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1031.1 1030.0 1027.5 1025.0 1022.0 1018.5 1017.5 0.9 2.0 4.5 7.0 10.0 13.5 14.5 9/17/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-18 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208451, E: 524936. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-18 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1032.0 Depth feet 0.0 15 8 7 7 4 9 14* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL FILL CL ML CL 3 1/2 inches of bituminous over 9 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, gray, moist. FILL: Clayey Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, dark brown to brown, moist. SANDY LEAN CLAY, slightly organic, dark brown, moist. (Buried Topsoil) SANDY SILT, brown, moist, soft. (Glaciofluvium) SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist, stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1031.0 1029.5 1024.5 1022.0 1020.0 1017.5 1.0 2.5 7.5 10.0 12.0 14.5 9/17/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-19 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 20' SW of staked location. N: 208490, E: 525209. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-19 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1032.0 Depth feet 0.0 19 7 3 4 3 8 14* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. *No set. PAV FILL FILL SP- SM SP- SM 3 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, trace roots, light brown, moist, very loose. (Glacial Outwash) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1041.0 1039.9 1037.9 1029.9 1027.4 0.9 2.0 4.0 12.0 14.5 9/17/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-20 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208864, E: 525356. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-20 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1041.9 Depth feet 0.0 11 6 14 14 30 16 16* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 8 feet. *No set. PAV FILL FILL SM SM ML 3 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-grained, light brown, moist. SILTY SAND, fine-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and possible Cobbles, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) SANDY SILT, gray and brown mottled, moist, stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1051.6 1049.5 1048.5 1043.5 1039.0 1038.0 0.9 3.0 4.0 9.0 13.5 14.5 9/17/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-21 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208859, E: 525215. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-21 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1052.5 Depth feet 0.0 14 6 4 9 12 19 23* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter from 10 to 12 1/2 feet. *No set. PAV FILL SM SP- SM SM SP SP 4 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist. SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist, very loose. (Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose. (Glacial Outwash) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, light brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Outwash) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and possible Cobbles, light brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Outwash) With a layer of Clayey Sand at 14 feet. END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1060.8 1057.7 1056.2 1054.7 1053.7 1051.7 1047.2 0.9 4.0 5.5 7.0 8.0 10.0 14.5 9/17/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-22 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 4' E of staked location. N: 208914, E: 524848. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-22 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1061.7 Depth feet 0.0 18 10 4 5 10 19 16* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 7 feet. Auger chatter at 12 1/2 feet. *No set. PAV FILL SM SP- SM SP- SM SM 4 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Sandy Silt, with Gravel, brown, moist. SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist, very loose to loose. (Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Outwash) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-grained, with lenses of Silty Sand, light brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Outwash) SILTY SAND, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1057.3 1053.2 1050.2 1048.2 1046.2 1043.7 0.9 5.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.5 9/17/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-23 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: Offset 12' S of staked location. N: 209155, E: 524776. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-23 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1058.2 Depth feet 0.0 13 8 3 15 13 11 34* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 11 feet. *No set. PAV FILL CL SM CL 4 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, moist. LEAN CLAY, with lenses of Silty Sand, brown, moist, soft to medium. (Glaciofluvium) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) Grayish brown at 12 feet. SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1050.0 1048.0 1044.0 1037.5 1036.5 1.0 3.0 7.0 13.5 14.5 9/18/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-24 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 209144, E: 525138. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-24 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1051.0 Depth feet 0.0 20 13 5 6 6 20 21* Aggregate base generally appeared to consist of recycled materials. Auger chatter at 7 feet. Auger chatter at 11 feet. *No set. PAV FILL SM SM ML 5 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist. SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, loose. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel and possible Cobbles, brown, moist, medium dense. (Glacial Till) SANDY SILT, gray, moist, very stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed while drilling. Boring immediately backfilled. 1040.5 1037.5 1029.5 1028.0 1027.0 1.0 4.0 12.0 13.5 14.5 9/18/18 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL ST-25 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerC. McClain L O G O F B O R I N G (See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: N: 208947, E: 525573. See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-25 METHOD: BORING: BPF Braun Intertec CorporationB1809303LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2018\09303.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 10/12/18 14:53Braun Project B1809303 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Apple Valley 2020 Street and Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Symbol Elev. feet 1041.5 Depth feet 0.0 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Based on Standards ASTM D 2487-11/2488-09a (Unified Soil Classification System) Group Symbol Group NameB Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D GW Well-graded gravelE Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravelE Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D SW Well-graded sandI Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sandI Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I CL Lean clayK L M PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M Organic OL CH Fat clayK L M MH Elastic siltK L M Organic OH PT Peat Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Coarse-grained Soils (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve)Fine-grained Soils (50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve) Sands (50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve) Clean Gravels (Less than 5% finesC) Gravels with Fines (More than 12% finesC) Clean Sands (Less than 5% finesH) Sands with Fines (More than 12% finesH) Gravels (More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Highly Organic Soils Silts and Clays (Liquid limit less than 50) Silts and Clays (Liquid limit 50 or more) Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor Inorganic Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line Liquid Limit −oven dried Liquid Limit −not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M N Organic silt K L M O Liquid Limit −oven dried Liquid Limit −not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M P Organic silt K L M Q Particle Size Identification Boulders.............. over 12" Cobbles................ 3" to 12" Gravel Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm) Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm) Sand Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm) Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm) Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40 (0.075 mm to 0.425 mm) Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mm Clay...................... < .005 mm Relative ProportionsL, M trace............................. 0 to 5% little.............................. 6 to 14% with.............................. ≥ 15% Inclusion Thicknesses lens............................... 0 to 1/8" seam............................. 1/8" to 1" layer.............................. over 1" Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPF Medium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF Very dense.................... over 50 BPF A.Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve. B.If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. C. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay D.Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = 𝐷30 2 / (𝐷10 𝑥𝐷60) E.If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. F.If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM. G. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. H. Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay I.If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. J. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is CL-ML, silty clay. K.If soil contains 15 to < 30% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. L. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. M. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. N. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line. P. PI plots on or above “A” line. Q.PI plots below “A” line. Laboratory Tests DD Dry Density,pcf OC Organic content, %PL Plastic limit WD Wet Density, pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf LL Liquid limit P200 % Passing #200 sieve MC Moisture conent, %PI Plasticity Index Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 1/4 tsf Soft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 1/4 to 1/2 tsf Medium.................... 5 to 8 BPF .................. 1/2 to 1 tsf Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsf Very Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf Drilling Notes: BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6 inches into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted for second and third 6-inch increments, and added to get BPF. Partial Penetration:If the sampler cannot be driven the full 12 inches beyond the initial 6-inch set, the number of blows for that partial penetration is shown as "No./X" (i.e., 50/2"). If the sampler cannot be advanced beyond the initial 6-inch set, the depth of penetration will be recorded in the Notes column as "No. to set X" (i.e., 50 to set 4"). WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required. WL: WL indicates the water level measured by the drillers either while drilling or following drilling. Moisture Content: Dry:Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. Moist: Damp but no visible water. Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. 1/2018 DRAFTAddendum Geotechnical Evaluation Report 2020-101 2020 Street & Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Prepared for City of Apple Valley Professional Certification: 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. Kevin S. Zalec, PE Project Engineer License Number: 47909 September 16, 2019 Project B1809303 Braun Intertec Corporation DRAFTAA/EOE Braun Intertec Corporation 11001 Hampshire Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55438 Phone:952.995.2000 Fax:952.995.2020 Web: braunintertec.com September 16, 2019 Project B1908477 Mr. Brandon Anderson City of Apple Valley 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 Re: Addendum Geotechnical Evaluation 2020-101 Street & Utility Improvements Various Streets North of Palomino Drive, West of Cedar Avenue Apple Valley, Minnesota Dear Mr. Anderson: We are pleased to present this Addendum Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the 2020 Street & Utility Improvement Project. Thank you for making Braun Intertec your geotechnical consultant for this project. If you have questions about this report, or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date, please contact Kevin Zalec at 952.995.2223 (kzalec@braunintertec.com) or Josh Kirk and 952.995.2222 (jkirk@braunintertec.com). Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Kevin S. Zalec, PE Project Engineer Joshua L. Kirk, PE Principal – Senior Engineer DRAFTTable of Contents Description Page A. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 A.1. Project Description......................................................................................................... 1 A.2. Site Conditions and History ............................................................................................ 1 A.3. Purpose.......................................................................................................................... 1 A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents ...................................................... 1 A.5. Scope of Services ........................................................................................................... 2 B. Results........................................................................................................................................ 3 B.1. Geologic Overview......................................................................................................... 3 B.2. Boring Results................................................................................................................ 3 B.3. Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 5 C. Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 6 C.1. Design and Construction Discussion............................................................................... 6 C.1.a. General.............................................................................................................. 6 C.1.b. Utility Invert Elevations...................................................................................... 6 C.1.c. Groundwater..................................................................................................... 7 C.1.d. Reuse of On-Site Soils........................................................................................ 7 C.1.e. Impacts on Adjacent Utility Lines....................................................................... 7 C.1.f. Vibrations during Construction.......................................................................... 7 C.2. Utility Installation........................................................................................................... 7 C.2.a. Utility Subgrade Stabilization............................................................................. 7 C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing........................................................................................ 8 C.2.c. Excavated Slopes............................................................................................... 8 C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering...................................................................................... 8 C.2.e. Corrosion Potential............................................................................................ 8 C.2.f. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction......................................................... 8 C.3. Pavements................................................................................................................... 10 C.3.a. Pavement Subgrade Preparation ..................................................................... 10 C.3.b. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll.......................................................................... 10 C.3.c. Design Sections................................................................................................ 10 C.3.d. Bituminous Pavement Materials...................................................................... 11 C.3.e. Performance and Maintenance........................................................................ 11 C.3.f. Miscellaneous Bituminous Recommendations................................................. 12 D. Procedures............................................................................................................................... 12 D.1. Penetration Test Borings.............................................................................................. 12 D.2. Exploration Logs........................................................................................................... 12 D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets........................................................................................ 12 D.2.b. Organic Vapor Measurements......................................................................... 13 D.2.c. Geologic Origins .............................................................................................. 13 D.3. Material Classification and Testing............................................................................... 13 D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification...................................................................... 13 D.3.b. Laboratory Testing........................................................................................... 13 D.4. Groundwater Measurements....................................................................................... 14 E. Qualifications ........................................................................................................................... 14 E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................. 14 E.1.a. Material Strata ................................................................................................ 14 DRAFTTable of Contents (continued) Description Page E.1.b. Groundwater Levels......................................................................................... 14 E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility...................................................................... 15 E.2.a. Plan Review..................................................................................................... 15 E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing............................................................ 15 E.3. Use of Report............................................................................................................... 15 E.4. Standard of Care.......................................................................................................... 15 Appendix Soil Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets (ST-11A, ST-26 to ST-41) Log of Previous Boring Sheets (ST-1 to ST-25) Descriptive Terminology of Soil DRAFTA.Introduction A.1.Project Description This Addendum Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the proposed design and construction of the 2020 Street and Utility Improvements, located in Apple Valley, Minnesota. We understand the City received additional funding for the project and will include reconstruction of the cul-de-sac roadways within the project area. The original project scope included the reconstruction and replacement of utilities on Cimarron Circle, Cimarron Road, Yancey Court, Cimarron Court, Greylock Court, Surrey Trail South, and Surrey Trail North. We understand Palomino Drive, Shasta Court, Beaumont Court, Sabra Court, and Cimarron Court have been added to the project scope. Additional deeper borings were requested on Cimarron Road as part of this addendum report. We were not provided traffic volumes at the time of this report; however, we assume the streets will be designed to City of Apple Valley standards. A.2.Site Conditions and History Currently, the project area exists as low volume residential streets surrounded by single-family homes. Construction of the single-family homes in the project area appears to have occurred between 1960 and 1975 based on a review of publicly available Dakota County property information. Current grades at our boring locations range from 1012.4 at Boring ST-35 to 1086.0 at Boring ST-32. Generally, the site has rolling topography with numerous hills throughout the area, with a slight downward slope towards the northwest. A.3.Purpose The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation is to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected borehole locations, evaluate their impact, and provide recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed street and utility improvements. A.4.Background Information and Reference Documents We reviewed the following information: DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 2 Previous Geotechnical Report prepared by Braun Intertec under Project Number B1809303 dated October 12, 2018. Soil Boring Location Sketch prepared by the City of Apple Valley dated July 25, 2019. Dakota County on-line Graphical Information System (http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/). Aerial images of the site available from Google Earth®. Atlas C-6, Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota prepared by the Minnesota Geological Survey and dated 1990. We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. A.5.Scope of Services We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Proposal for a Geotechnical Evaluation to the City of Apple Valley (City), dated August 5, 2019, and authorized on August 6, 2019. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services. Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited. Coordinating the clearing of exploration locations of underground utilities. Bolton & Menk, Inc. selected and the City of Apple valley staked the exploration locations. We acquired the surface elevations and locations with GPS technology using the State of Minnesota’s permanent GPS base station network. The Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the borings. Performing 16 standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-26 to ST-41, to nominal depths of 14 1/2 to 30 feet below grade. In addition, we drilled one additional DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 3 location near Boring ST-11, denoted as ST-11A to observe and screen the subsurface soils for environmental impacts. Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analysis. Recommendations for preparing utility and pavement subgrades, including excavation support, if applicable, and the selection, placement and compaction of excavation backfill and other structural fill. Recommendations for the pavement section design thicknesses. Our authorized scope of services for the project also included screening of the soil samples recovered from Boring ST-11A and submittal of two soil samples for analytical laboratory testing. Based on preliminary soil screening, the results of the environmental sampling appear to be below regulated fill criteria. B.Results B.1.Geologic Overview We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, laboratory testing, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic history for the site. B.2.Boring Results Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the pavement section thicknesses and subsurface soil profile, in the general order we encountered the strata. Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details related to the soil borings performed. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 4 Table 1. Pavement Section Summary Location Boring Number Bituminous Thickness (in) Apparent Aggregate Base Thickness (in) Palomino Drive ST-26 6 6 Shasta Court ST-27 7 5 ST-28 7 4 ST-29 10 4 Palomino Drive ST-30 4 11 Beaumont Court ST-31 6 6 ST-32 6 4 Palomino Drive ST-33 6 5 Sabra Court ST-34 6 4 Cimarron Road ST-35 4 7 ST-36 4 9 ST-37 5 8 ST-38 5 10 Cimarron Court ST-39 5 7 Cimarron Road ST-40 3 7 Surrey Trail ST-41 4 9 Average Thicknesses 5 1/2 7 *The aggregate base layer was indiscernible from the underlying material in the field at this location. Apparent aggregate base materials encountered consisted of reclaimed pavement materials and may not meet MnDOT specifications for Class 5. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 5 Table 2. Subsurface Profile Summary Strata Soil Type - ASTM Classification Range of Penetration Resistances Commentary and Details Pavement Section ------See Table 1 above. Fill SM, SC-SM, CL 3 to 67* blows per foot (BPF) General penetration resistance of 5 to 20 BPF. Moisture condition generally moist. Extended to depths ranging from 2 to 12 feet below the existing surface. Variable amounts of gravel. *Cobbles encountered within the fill of Boring ST- 30. Variable compaction. Buried Topsoil Fill OL 6 to7 BPF Encountered from a depth of about 4 to 7 feet within Boring ST-11A. An odor was detected within the buried topsoil of ST-11A at a depth of 5 feet. Glaciofluvium ML, CL 7 to 13 BPF General penetration resistance of 7 to 8 BPF. Moisture condition generally moist. Glacial Outwash SP, SP-SM 5 to 82 BPF General penetration resistance of 5 to 20 BPF. Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles and boulders based the higher blow counts observed in several of the borings. Moisture condition generally moist. Glacial Till SM, SC, CL 3 BPF to 50 blows for 3 inches of penetration General penetration resistance of 5 to 15 BPF. Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles and boulders based on the auger chatter noted by the drill crew and penetration test refusal. Moisture condition generally moist. For simplicity in this report, we define fill to mean existing, uncontrolled or undocumented fill. B.3.Groundwater Groundwater was not observed while advancing the most recent soil borings; it appears the groundwater level is below the depths explored. The soil borings indicate a layered soil profile that is conducive for encountering perched water conditions. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 6 Groundwater was encountered in three of the borings performed for the initial geotechnical evaluation. Based on a review of the Minnesota Well Index in the project area, the observed groundwater appears to be perched. Table 3 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix also include this information and additional details. Project planning should anticipate seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater. Table 3. Groundwater Summary Location Surface Elevation Measured or Estimated Depth to Groundwater (ft) Corresponding Groundwater Elevation (ft) ST-1 1029.5 20 1009 1/2 ST-11 1052.1 13 1039 ST-13 1012.7 14 998 1/2 C.Recommendations C.1.Design and Construction Discussion C.1.a.General We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed construction to the extent it was reported to us by others. Depending on the extent of available information, assumptions may have been made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the project details, we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations. C.1.b.Utility Invert Elevations The soils at anticipated invert elevations appear suitable for support of utilities and generally consist of glacially deposited soils. However, based on experience with similar projects, soft clayey or silty soils may not be suitable for pipe support when excavated. Additional subcutting may be required to support utilities disturbed by construction activities. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 7 C.1.c.Groundwater We observed limited groundwater in the borings. Where we observed groundwater, it appeared to be perched. Some of the soils, such as silty sands, clayey sands and clay, will collect water from precipitation or if water drains to the site. We recommend the contractor remove any water that collects in work areas before performing further work. Based upon the boring observations, we anticipate sump pumps would be suitable for temporary dewatering. C.1.d.Reuse of On-Site Soils The majority of the onsite inorganic soils appear suitable for reuse as engineered fill within utility trenches and pavement subgrades. If organic soils or buried topsoil is encountered within the trenches, they should be segregated and removed. This may require import of additional soils to achieve planned subgrade elevations. C.1.e.Impacts on Adjacent Utility Lines The soils on site are a mixture of sandy and silty/clayey soils at depth, and excavations to remove and install the new sewer line will be wide due to sloughing of the sandy soils. The contractor should be aware of these conditions and take precautions to support any in-place utilities throughout construction. C.1.f.Vibrations during Construction Construction and backfill operations may induce vibrations on neighboring structures. Excessive ground vibration levels can cause cosmetic damage to structures, or in rare cases structural damage. We recommend precondition surveys of adjacent structures as well as monitoring of ground vibrations during construction. C.2.Utility Installation C.2.a.Utility Subgrade Stabilization We anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support. However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions such as soft clay or silts, organic soils or perched water at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. If crushed rock is used as pipe bedding, we recommend wrapping the aggregate in geotextile fabric to prevent the migration of fine-grained materials into the voids of the aggregate. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 8 C.2.b.Excavation Oversizing When removing unsuitable materials below structures or pavements, we recommend the excavation extend outward and downward at a slope of 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. C.2.c.Excavated Slopes Based on the borings, we anticipate most of the on-site soils in excavations will consist of a mix of cohesive and granular glacial deposits. The granular soils will govern excavation requirements and are typically considered Type C Soil under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines. OSHA guidelines indicate unsupported excavations in Type C soils should have a gradient no steeper than 1 1/2H:1V. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. OSHA requires an engineer to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth. 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. C.2.d.Excavation Dewatering Some of the soils, such as silty sands, clayey sands, silts, and lean clays will collect water from precipitation or if water drains to the site. We recommend the contractor remove any water that collects in work areas before performing further work. Based upon the boring observations, we anticipate sumps and pumps would be suitable for temporary dewatering. C.2.e.Corrosion Potential The soil borings indicated the site predominantly consists of a combination of silty, clayey, and sandy soils. We consider these soils slightly- to moderately corrosive to metallic conduits. If utilities extend through organics or clay soils, we recommend bedding the utilities in sandy soil free of any clay lumps or constructing the utilities with non-corrosive materials. C.2.f.Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction We recommend using existing on site soils as backfill material. If imported material is to be used, Table 4 contains our recommendations for engineered fill. Note that similar materials compared to existing should be used. Importing different soils for backfill may create lenses that could trap water. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 9 Table 4. Engineered Fill Materials* Locations To Be Used Engineered Fill Classification Possible Soil Type Descriptions Gradation Additional Requirements Pavements, Utility Trench Backfill Pavement fill SP, SM, SC, CL 100% passing 2-inch sieve Organic Content (OC) < 2% Plasticity Index (PI)< 15% Below landscaped surfaces, where subsidence is not a concern Non-structural fill SP, SM, SC, ML, CL 100% passing 6-inch sieve OC < 10% *More select soils comprised of coarse sands with < 5% passing #200 sieve may be needed to accommodate work occurring in periods of wet or freezing weather. We recommend spreading engineered fill in loose lifts of approximately 12 inches thick. We recommend compacting engineered fill in accordance with the criteria presented below in Table 5. The project documents should specify relative compaction of engineered fill, based on the structure located above the engineered fill, and vertical proximity to that structure. Table 5. Compaction Recommendations Summary Reference Relative Compaction, percent (ASTM D698 – Standard Proctor) Moisture Content Variance from Optimum, percentage points < 12% Passing #200 Sieve (Typically SP, SP-SM) > 12% Passing #200 Sieve (Typically CL, SC,ML,SM) Within 3 feet of pavement subgrade 100 ±3 -1 to +3 More than 3 feet below pavement subgrade 95 ±3 ±3 Below landscaped surfaces 90 ±5 ±4 *Increase compaction requirement to meet compaction required for structure supported by this engineered fill. The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as engineered fill or to place engineered fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during construction. We recommend performing density tests in engineered fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively compacting the soil and meeting project requirements. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 10 C.3.Pavements C.3.a.Pavement Subgrade Preparation We recommend the following steps for pavement subgrade preparation, understanding the reconstruction will generally match existing grades. Note that project planning may need to require additional subcuts to limit frost heave. 1.Strip existing structures, pavements, and aggregate base section from the area. 2.Have a geotechnical representative observe the excavated subgrade to evaluate if additional subgrade improvements are necessary. 3.Surface compact to at least 100 percent of Standard Proctor density. 4.Place pavement engineered fill to grade where required and compact in accordance with Section C.2.e to bottom of pavement section. 5.Proofroll the pavement subgrade as described in Section C.2.g. Due to the generally granular nature of the soils it may be necessary to place a portion of the aggregate base to facilitate truck traffic. Note, we recommend sloping subgrade soils to promote drainage and removal of accumulated water. C.3.b.Pavement Subgrade Proofroll As the site soils at anticipated pavement subgrade are sands with variable amounts of fine particles, a proofroll will be difficult to perform. Therefore, we recommend observing surface compaction of pavement subgrade followed by a proofroll when the aggregate base section is in place. Compaction tests could also be taken on the subgrade soils prior to the placement of the aggregate base. The contractor should correct areas that display excessive yielding or rutting during the proofroll, as determined by the geotechnical representative. Possible options for subgrade correction include moisture conditioning and recompaction, and/or subcutting and replacement with soil or crushed aggregate. C.3.c.Design Sections Our scope of services for this project did not include laboratory tests on subgrade soils to determine an R-value for pavement design. Based on our experience with similar silty sand/clayey sand soils anticipated at the pavement subgrade elevation, we recommend pavement design assume an R-value of DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 11 30. Note the contractor may need to perform limited removal of unsuitable or less suitable soils to achieve this value. Table 6 provides standard city pavement sections. Based on the encountered soils and recommendations above, this section appears adequate to support the anticipated traffic volumes. Table 6. Recommended Bituminous Pavement Sections (Matches City Standards) Layer Thickness (inches) Bituminous Wearing Course 2 Bituminous Base Course 2 Aggregate Base 8 C.3.d.Bituminous Pavement Materials We recommend specifying crushed aggregate base meeting the requirements of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Specification 3138 for Class 5. We recommend that the bituminous wear and non-wear courses meet the requirements of Specifications 2360, with the following designations in accordance with the City Standard Plates: Wear: SPWEA330C Non-wear: SPNWA330C We recommend compacting the aggregate base to meet the requirements of MnDOT Specification 2211.3.D.2.c (Penetration Index Method for the dynamic cone penetrometer [DCP]). We recommend compacting bituminous pavements to at least 92 percent of their maximum theoretical (Rice) density. C.3.e.Performance and Maintenance We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life for bituminous. This is the amount of time before we anticipate the pavement will require reconstruction. This performance life assumes routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance. It is common to place the non-wear course of bituminous and then delay placement of wear course. For this situation, we recommend evaluating if the reduced pavement section will have sufficient structure to support construction traffic. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 12 Many conditions affect the overall performance of the exterior slabs and pavements. Some of these conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. With regard to bituminous pavements in particular, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the first few years of placement, and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in exterior slabs and pavements to lessen the potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weatherdistress due to wetting and softening of the subgrade. C.3.f.Miscellaneous Bituminous Recommendations When placing new pavement next to in-place pavement, we recommend providing a full-depth sawcut to ensure a uniform joint. We recommend tack coat between all bituminous layers and prior to placing any bituminous mixtures on existing pavement in accordance with MnDOT Specification 2357. D.Procedures D.1.Penetration Test Borings We drilled the penetration test borings with a truck-mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollow- stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. D.2.Exploration Logs D.2.a.Log of Boring Sheets The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance tests performed. The logs also present the results of laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples and groundwater measurements. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 13 We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings. Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions. D.2.b.Organic Vapor Measurements We screened the material samples retrieved during drilling for the presence of organic vapors with a photoionization detector (PID) using both: (1) direct readings from each sample, and (2) the headspace method of analysis recommended in “Soil Sample Collection and Analysis Procedures,” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Petroleum Remediation Guidance Document 4-04 (September 2008). The PID is equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp and calibrated to an isobutylene standard, prior to the start of fieldwork. The materials encountered in the borings did not generate organic vapor concentrations above background levels. D.2.c.Geologic Origins We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (3) penetration resistance testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and (5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past. D.3.Material Classification and Testing D.3.a.Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we used. D.3.b.Laboratory Testing The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. The remaining laboratory test results follow the exploration logs. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM or AASHTO procedures. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 14 D.4.Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then filled the boreholes, as noted on the boring logs. E.Qualifications E.1.Variations in Subsurface Conditions E.1.a.Material Strata We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them. E.1.b.Groundwater Levels We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors. DRAFTCity of Apple Valley Project B1908477 September 16, 2019 Page 15 E.2.Continuity of Professional Responsibility E.2.a.Plan Review We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made a number of assumptions to help us develop our recommendations. We should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations. E.2.b.Construction Observations and Testing We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the preparation of this report and to accept the construction-related geotechnical engineer-of-record responsibilities. E.3.Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. E.4.Standard of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. DRAFTAppendix o 0 300150Feet 11001 Hampshire Avenue SMinneapolis, MN 55438952.995.2000braunintertec.com Figure 1 Project No:B1908477 Drawing No: CMF9/16/2019KZ9/16/2019 2020-101 AdditionalSoil Borings Various streets north ofPalomino Drive, westof Cedar Avenue Apple Valley,Minnesota BoringLocationSketch !( Location of AdditionalStandard Penetration TestBoring (B1908477) !U Location of StandardPenetration Test Boring(B1809303) B1908477_Borsktch Drawn By:Date Drawn:Checked By:Last Modified:F:\2019\B1908477\GIS\B1908477_Borsktch.mxdDakota County !U!U !U !U!U !U !U !U !U !U !U !U !U !U!U !U !U!U!U !U !U !U !U !U !U !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( C h a p a r r al Ci rChaparralCtY a n c ey Ct HiddenMead o w CtDiamondDrSable Dr Cimarron Ct 1 2 8 t h St S w e et waterDrCim arro n C irSabra CtButteAvePennock AvePonyLnESurrey Trl N ShastaCtChaparralDr Beaumont Ct SurreyTrl S GrandviewTerP a lo m i n o D rCimarronRdHiddenMeadowRd 127TH STPALOMINODR P A L O M E N O D R P A L O M IN O D R ¬«77 §¨¦35E ST-24ST-23 ST-25 ST-20ST-21 ST-19 ST-22 ST-18 ST-17 ST-14 ST-15 ST-16 ST-11 ST-13ST-12 ST-7 ST-10ST-9ST-8 ST-5 ST-1 ST-6 ST-4 ST-2 ST-3 SB-41 SB-39 SB-40SB-38 SB-11A SB-37 SB-34 SB-32 SB-33 SB-31 SB-30 SB-36 SB-28 SB-27 SB-29 SB-35 SB-26 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community 1 inch = 300 feet Drawing Information Project Information Elev./ Depth ft 1.1 4.0 7.0 11.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 8 inches of bituminous over 5 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, gray and brown, moist FILL: ORGANIC CLAY (OL), black, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, gray to brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL TILL) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-4-4 (8) 10" 5-4-4 (8) 13" 3-5-4 (9) 17" 4-5-4 (9) 16" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Odor detected from 2 to 8 feet Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-11A LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/23/19 END DATE:08/23/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-11A page 1 of 1DRAFT4.4 4.1 5.5 4.6 Elev./ Depth ft 1.0 2.0 7.0 13.0 14.5 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 6 inches of bituminous over 6 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, dark brown, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), fine-grained Sand, little Gravel, brown, moist (GLACIAL TILL) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-7-5 (12) 13" 7-5-5 (10) 16" 6-5-6 (11) 15" 7-14-12 (26) 14" 8-8-11 (19) 17" 8-8-9 (17) 16" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-26 LOCATION: See attached sketch. Boring offset 6 feet east of staked location. NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/27/19 END DATE:08/27/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-26 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.0 4.0 9.0 14.0 18.0 21.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 7 inches of bituminous over 5 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, contains lenses of Lean Clay, brown, moist CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose to loose (GLACIAL TILL) SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, brown, moist, stiff to very stiff (GLACIAL TILL) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, with Silt lenses, brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 1-2-2 (4) 6" 3-1-2 (3) 14" 1-2-3 (5) 12" 2-5-5 (10) 12" 4-12-9 (21) 13" 28-14-8 (22) 12" 4-6-4 (10) 13" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-27 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/22/19 END DATE:08/22/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-27 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 0.9 4.0 7.0 9.0 12.0 13.5 14.5 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 7 inches of bituminous over 4 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained Sand, with Silt lenses, brown, moist FILL: LEAN CLAY (CL), with Silt lenses, brown and gray, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL TILL) SANDY SILT (ML), brown, moist, loose (GLACIOFLUVIUM) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) SILT (ML), brown and gray, moist, loose (GLACIOFLUVIUM) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 1-3-3 (6) 7" 1-3-5 (8) 12" 3-5-3 (8) 14" 2-3-4 (7) 13" 3-4-9 (13) 14" 2-3-4 (7) 13" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-28 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/22/19 END DATE:08/22/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-28 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.2 4.0 11.0 14.5 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 10 inches of bituminous over 4 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist (GLACIAL TILL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, light brown to brown, moist, loose to medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 4-6-6 (12) 13" 5-3-3 (6) 14" 3-3-2 (5) 10" 5-5-5 (10) 13" 5-6-6 (12) 14" 5-5-5 (10) 13" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-29 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/22/19 END DATE:08/22/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-29 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.3 10.0 14.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 11 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, occasional Cobbles, brown and dark brown, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, with Gravel, and Cobbles, brown, moist, very dense (GLACIAL TILL) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 8-9-14 (23) 8" 35-37-30 (67*) 0" 5-5-6 (11) 14" 50/3" (REF*) 0" 50-50 (50) 6" 38-50 (50) 6" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks *No sample recovery *No sample recovery Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-30 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/23/19 END DATE:08/23/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-30 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.0 9.0 12.0 14.5 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 6 inches of bituminous over 6 inches of aggregate base SILT with SAND (ML), contains lenses of Lean Clay, brown and gray, moist With a layer of Silty Sand encountered at 7 feet POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, occasional Silt lenses, light brown to brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-3-3 (6) 10" 3-2-3 (5) 13" 3-6-6 (12) 14" 4-5-7 (12) 14" 6-6-7 (13) 13" 6-7-6 (13) 14" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-31 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/23/19 END DATE:08/23/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-31 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 0.8 7.0 13.0 14.5 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 6 inches of bituminous over 4 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, dark brown to brown, moist POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, brown, moist (GLACIAL OUTWASH) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-4-4 (8) 8" 9-9-7 (16) 12" 4-3-2 (5) 16" 3-3-3 (6) 12" 4-2-2 (4) 13" 4-3-3 (6) 13" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-32 LOCATION: See attached sketch. Boring offset 23 feet northeast of staked location. NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/23/19 END DATE:08/23/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-32 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 0.9 4.0 7.0 14.5 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 6 inches of bituminous over 5 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to coarse-grained Sand, with Gravel, brown and dark brown, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine to coarse-grained Sand, with Gravel, and Cobbles, brown, moist, medium dense to very dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 6-8-8 (16) 10" 10-7-5 (12) 11" 14-14-16 (30) 6" 16-18-12 (30) 4" 20-30-36 (66*) 0" 47-40-42 (82*) 0" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks *No sample recovery *No sample recovery Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-33 LOCATION: See attached sketch. Boring offset 6 feet south of staked location. NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/23/19 END DATE:08/23/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-33 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 0.8 4.0 7.0 12.0 14.5 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 6 inches of bituminous over 4 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, with Gravel, brown, moist CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-5-4 (9) 5-7-6 (13) 12" 6-8-12 (20) 18" 5-8-7 (15) 18" 4-3-4 (7) 15" 3-5-4 (9) 13" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-34 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/23/19 END DATE:08/23/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-34 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 0.9 4.0 9.0 12.0 14.0 20.0 21.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, brown, moist FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, dark brown to brown, moist CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL TILL) SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very dense (GLACIAL TILL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-3-4 (7) 10" 4-4-4 (8) 12" 4-3-2 (5) 6" 3-2-3 (5) 12" 8-50/5" (REF) 10" 9-11-13 (24) 16" 8-10-10 (20) 16" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-35 LOCATION: See attached sketch. Boring offset 11 feet west of staked location. NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/22/19 END DATE:08/22/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-35 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.1 7.0 17.0 25.0 31.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 9 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, with Clay lenses, brown, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL TILL) CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium-grained Sand, brown, moist, loose (GLACIAL TILL) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 1-3-4 (7) 8" 4-3-2 (5) 4" 1-2-2 (4) 8" 2-2-3 (5) 12" 4-4-5 (9) 8" 2-3-3 (6) 10" 1-2-4 (6) 14" 4-4-3 (7) 10" 7-12-15 (27) 6" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-36 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/22/19 END DATE:08/22/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-36 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.1 4.0 9.0 21.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base FILL: SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace Gravel, brown to gray, moist FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, dark brown to brown, moist CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-5-3 (8) 6" 3-3-4 (7) 11" 9-8-10 (18) 1" 4-7-13 (20) 18" 11-13-16 (29) 2" 9-11-12 (23) 18" 8-8-11 (19) 16" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-37 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/21/19 END DATE:08/21/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-37 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.3 9.0 26.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 10 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown to brown, dry to moist, medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-6-3 (9) 8" 5-7-16 (23) 6" 18-5-6 (11) 8" 7-8-12 (20) 6" 23-8-6 (14) 6" 3-5-6 (11) 11" 5-6-8 (14) 12" 5-8-10 (18) 12" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-38 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/21/19 END DATE:08/21/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-38 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.0 4.0 26.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 5 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base FILL: POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP- SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to coarse- grained Sand, trace Gravel, light brown to brown, moist, loose to medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) Fine to medium-grained Sand at 25 feet END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 4-8-7 (15) 8" 2-3-3 (6) 10" 5-7-7 (14) 2" 5-4-5 (9) 12" 4-4-4 (8) 8" 3-3-4 (7) 9" 6-6-6 (12) 11" 8-6-7 (13) 10" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-39 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/21/19 END DATE:08/21/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-39 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 0.8 12.0 18.0 21.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 3 inches of bituminous over 7 inches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist (GLACIAL TILL) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM), fine-grained Sand, light brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL OUTWASH) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 2-6-5 (11) 9" 3-5-2 (7*) 1" 1-2-1 (3) 6" 2-1-2 (3) 13" 7-11-13 (24) 15" 9-11-14 (25) 14" 16-8-7 (15) 12" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks *Pushed rock Auger chatter at 10 feet Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-40 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/21/19 END DATE:08/21/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-40 page 1 of 1DRAFT Elev./ Depth ft 1.1 2.0 7.0 12.0 14.0 17.0 21.0 WaterLevelDescription of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or 2487; Rock-USACE EM 1110-1-2908) PAVEMENT, 4 inches of bituminous over 9 nches of aggregate base FILL: SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium- grained Sand, dark brown, moist LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, moist SANDY SILT (ML), reddish brown, moist (ALLUVIUM) LEAN CLAY (CL), brown, moist SILT (ML), brown, moist SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium-grained Sand, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense (GLACIAL TILL) END OF BORING Boring immediately backfilled 5 10 15 20 25 30 SampleBlows (N-Value) Recovery 3-3-4 (7) 8" 3-4-5 (9) 14" 3-4-3 (7) 13" 2-3-4 (7) 18" 3-3-5 (8) 18" 3-3-4 (7) 18" 8-6-5 (11) 13" PID ppm MC %Tests or Remarks Water not observed while drilling. LOG OF BORING See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations Project Number B1908477 Geotechnical & Environmental Evaluation 2020-101 Additional Soil Borings Various Streets N of Palomino Drive & W of Cedar Ave Apple Valley, Minnesota BORING:ST-41 LOCATION: See attached sketch NORTHING:EASTING: DRILLER:C. McClain LOGGED BY:K. Zalec START DATE:08/21/19 END DATE:08/21/19 SURFACE ELEVATION:RIG:7514 METHOD:3 1/4" HSA SURFACING:Bituminous WEATHER:Clear B1908477 Braun Intertec Corporation ST-41 page 1 of 1DRAFT Descriptive Terminology of Soil Based on Standards ASTM D 2487-11/2488-09a (Unified Soil Classification System) Group Symbol Group NameB Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D GW Well-graded gravelE Cu < 4 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D GP Poorly graded gravelE Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelE F G Fines Classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelE F G Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3D SW Well-graded sandI Cu < 6 and/or (Cc < 1 or Cc > 3)D SP Poorly graded sandI Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandF G I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandF G I CL Lean clayK L M PI < 4 or plots below "A" lineJ ML SiltK L M Organic OL CH Fat clayK L M MH Elastic siltK L M Organic OH PT Peat Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Coarse-grained Soils (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve)Fine-grained Soils (50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve) Sands (50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve) Clean Gravels (Less than 5% finesC) Gravels with Fines (More than 12% finesC) Clean Sands (Less than 5% finesH) Sands with Fines (More than 12% finesH) Gravels (More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Highly Organic Soils Silts and Clays (Liquid limit less than 50) Silts and Clays (Liquid limit 50 or more) Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor Inorganic Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" lineJ PI plots on or above "A" line PI plots below "A" line Liquid Limit −oven dried Liquid Limit −not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M N Organic silt K L M O Liquid Limit −oven dried Liquid Limit −not dried <0.75 Organic clay K L M P Organic silt K L M Q Particle Size Identification Boulders.............. over 12" Cobbles................ 3" to 12" Gravel Coarse............. 3/4" to 3" (19.00 mm to 75.00 mm) Fine................. No. 4 to 3/4" (4.75 mm to 19.00 mm) Sand Coarse.............. No. 10 to No. 4 (2.00 mm to 4.75 mm) Medium........... No. 40 to No. 10 (0.425 mm to 2.00 mm) Fine.................. No. 200 to No. 40 (0.075 mm to 0.425 mm) Silt........................ No. 200 (0.075 mm) to .005 mm Clay...................... < .005 mm Relative ProportionsL, M trace............................. 0 to 5% little.............................. 6 to 14% with.............................. ≥ 15% Inclusion Thicknesses lens............................... 0 to 1/8" seam............................. 1/8" to 1" layer.............................. over 1" Apparent Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very loose ..................... 0 to 4 BPF Loose ............................ 5 to 10 BPF Medium dense.............. 11 to 30 BPF Dense............................ 31 to 50 BPF Very dense.................... over 50 BPF A.Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve. B.If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. C. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay D.Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = 𝐷30 2 / (𝐷10 𝑥𝐷60) E.If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. F.If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM. G. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. H. Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay I.If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. J. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is CL-ML, silty clay. K.If soil contains 15 to < 30% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. L. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. M. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. N. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line. P. PI plots on or above “A” line. Q.PI plots below “A” line. Laboratory Tests DD Dry Density,pcf OC Organic content, %PL Plastic limit WD Wet Density, pcf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf LL Liquid limit P200 % Passing #200 sieve MC Moisture conent, %PI Plasticity Index Consistency of Blows Approximate Unconfined Cohesive Soils Per Foot Compressive Strength Very soft................... 0 to 1 BPF................... < 1/4 tsf Soft........................... 2 to 4 BPF................... 1/4 to 1/2 tsf Medium.................... 5 to 8 BPF .................. 1/2 to 1 tsf Stiff........................... 9 to 15 BPF................. 1 to 2 tsf Very Stiff................... 16 to 30 BPF............... 2 to 4 tsf Hard.......................... over 30 BPF................ > 4 tsf Drilling Notes: BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6 inches into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted for second and third 6-inch increments, and added to get BPF. Partial Penetration:If the sampler cannot be driven the full 12 inches beyond the initial 6-inch set, the number of blows for that partial penetration is shown as "No./X" (i.e., 50/2"). If the sampler cannot be advanced beyond the initial 6-inch set, the depth of penetration will be recorded in the Notes column as "No. to set X" (i.e., 50 to set 4"). WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required. WL: WL indicates the water level measured by the drillers either while drilling or following drilling. Moisture Content: Dry:Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. Moist: Damp but no visible water. Wet: Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. 1/2018 Figures PHASE 1 PROJECT AREA McAndrews Road Cedar AvenueGalaxie AvenueFlagstaff Avenue140th Street 150th Street Pilot Knob RoadGarden View Drive160th StreetInterstate 35EPHASE 2 PROJECT AREA Palomino DriveH:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Location Map.dwg 9/12/2019 2:34:55 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 1: Location Map September 2019 FEETSCALE 0 1500 3000 R >>||||||||||||||||||||||||>>>|| S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S l l l llll l l ll l l l l ll llll llll l l l l llll lllllllll l l l l l l l llllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllll l llllllllllllW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>D D D D D D D D D S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lllll llllllllllllll lllllllll l l l l lllllllllllllllllllll l lllll l llllll l l S S S S >>>>>>>lll>l>llllllllllD SD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >ll lllll l l l llllllll CO S S S S D S S S S S S S S S S SS S S S SS S D S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S D D D S S S S S S S S S S S S S >llll>l ll>>l>l>>l>S S S S S S SS DH S S S S S S S l>> l >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lll ll>>>> > >lll>>>>ll>>l>ll>>>ll ll>S llS ll>>>>>> >> l l l lllllllllll l l l l l l l l ll l l l llll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>llll l l l l>l l>>>l l l l>> >>>>>>llllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Surrey T r ail Cimarr o n C o u r t GreylockButte AvenueYancey Court Cimarr o n Ci r cl e Palomino Dr i v e Shast a C o u r t Beaumont CourtSabra CourtPennock AvenueInterstate 35EHidde n Mea d o w R oa d Cedar Avenue (MN-77)Cimarron Road BD-P13 WVR-P11.3 WVR-P11.2 WVR-P11.1 WVR-P11 WVR-P111 WVR-P6 WVR-P112 BD-P15 BD-P14 BD-P140 Court Black Dog Water s h e d Vermillion River W a t e r s h e d Chaparral Drive103 115 123 135 147 157 169 100 144 136 128 120 102 127 139 130185 191 213 237 245 251 257 263 269 275 281 287 303 305 307 12521 12525 12529 12533 1253012522309 315 341 349 355 361 367 373 379 385 391 403 404400104 108 116 144 100 112 120 122132140 136 137 121 141 135 129 123 117 111 394 376 366 358 352 346340 100108 116 124 117 109 101 326 320 302 296 290284278 272 266260254248 242 214 208 202 196 190 184 176 101 103 105 102 106 104 102 112 137 193121 113 104 177 126 101 121 120 122 138 128 135 103 119 158 123 185 109 169 271 150 122 153 156 127 148 145 124 111 134 161 135 109 140 143 WVR-P130 H:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Utility Improvements.dwg 9/12/2019 2:36:46 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 2: Utility Improvements September 2019 FEETSCALE 0 150 300 R >> l > >> l >S S D Sanitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer Existing Proposed Legend WCA Pond Non-WCA Pond Watershed Boundary > Full Replacement Lining Phase 1 (2020) Phase 2 (2021) >>>>>>>>||||||||||||||||||||||>>>>>>S S S S S S l l l l l l l l l l l l l lll llllll l l lllllllllll l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l llllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllllllllllll l l l l lllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>D S >>>>>>lllllS S >>>>>>>l>ll>l>l>ll>>l>l>>l >>>llllllllD D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> l llllllllllllllllllll lll l ll S S S S D S S S S S S S S S SS S S S SS S D S S >>>ll >>>ll>l>>l>>l>>l>l>> l >> >>l > l >> l >>ll>l>>l>ll>l>l> l >l l l>ll>>l>l>l>l>ll>>ll>>l>>>>lll>S S S S S S SS DH S S S S S S S ll>>>>>>>> l l l l ll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lllll l l llll>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>lllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>l>l>>l>l>ll>>>>l>>>l >l >>l>>>>>l>>>>>>llll> >>l>l l>l>l l>ll> ll llll>>l>S llll llS llllll>>>>>>>>>>D l l l l llllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>l l l ll>>>l l l l l l l l ll>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>lllllllllllllllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>l>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Greylock Yancey Court Cimarr o n Ci r cl e Palomino Dr i v e Shasta C o u r t Beaumont CourtSabra CourtCimarron Road BD-P13 Court Chaparral Drive103 115 123 135 147 157 169 100 144 136 128 120 102 127 139 130185 191 213 237 245 251 257 263 269 275 281 287 303 305 307 12521 12525 12529 12533 1253012522309 302 296 196 190 184 176 101 103 105 104 102 112 137 193 121 113 104 177 126 101 121 120 122 138 128 135 103 119 158 123 185 109 169 271 150 122 153 156 127 148 145 124 111 134 161 135 109 140 143 H:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Utility Improvements.dwg 9/12/2019 2:36:55 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 2A: Utility Improvements September 2019 FEETSCALE 0 80 160 R >> l > >> l >S S D Sanitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer Existing Proposed Legend WCA Pond Non-WCA Pond > Full Replacement Lining >>>>>>>>>>>>S S S l l l l l l l l lllllllllll l l l l l l llll l l l l l l l l l lllllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllll l l l l llllllllW >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>D D D D D D D S S S S S S S S S S S S S S>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllllll>l llllllllllllllllllllllllll l l lllllll l l l ll> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > l l l l l l l l llllll l l CO S SS S S S SS S D S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S D D D S S S S S S S S S S S S l>l>ll>>l>l>ll>l >l l l>ll>>l>l>l>l>>l>l>>l>>ll>l>l>ll>ll>l>l>l>>l>>>l>>ll>l>> >>l>l>ll>>>>l>l>>l>>ll>>ll>>l>>l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l llllllllll l l l l l l l l l llllllll l l >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllll l l l l l l llll>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>Surrey T r ail Cimarr o n C o u r t Greylock Pennock AvenueHidde n Mea d o w R oa d Cedar Avenue (MN-77)Cimarron Road WVR-P11.3 WVR-P11.2 WVR-P11.1 WVR-P11 WVR-P111 WVR-P6 WVR-P112 Court Hidden Meadow Court 257 263 269 275 281 287 303 305 307 12521 12525 12529 12533 1253012522309 315 341 349 355 361 367 373 379 385 391 403 404400104 108 116 144 100 112 120 122 132140 136 137 121 141 135 129 123 117 111 394 376 366 358 352 346340 100 108 116 124 117 109 101 326 320 302 296 290284278 272 266 260254 169 161H:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Utility Improvements.dwg 9/12/2019 2:37:04 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 2B: Utility Improvements September 2019 FEETSCALE 0 80 160 R >> l > >> l >S S D Sanitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer Existing Proposed Legend WCA Pond Non-WCA Pond > Full Replacement Lining P Surrey T r ail Cimarr o n C o u r t GreylockButte AvenueYancey Court Cimarr o n Ci r cl e Palomino D r i v e Shast a C o u r t Beaumont CourtSabra CourtPennock AvenueInterstate 35EHidde n Mea d o w R oa d Cedar Avenue (MN-77)Cimarron Road 103 115 123 135 147 157 169 100 144 136 128 120 102 127 139 130185 191 213 237 245 251 257 263 269 275 281 287 303 305 307 12521 12525 12529 12533 1253012522309 315 341 349 355 361 367 373 379 385 391 403 404400104 108 116 144 100 112 120 122132140 136 137 121 141 135 129 123 117 111 394 376 366 358 352 346340 100108 116 124 117 109 101 326 320 302 296 290284278 272 266260254248 242 214 208 202 196 190 184 176 101 103 105 102 106 104 102 Court Chaparral Drive112 137 193121 113 104 177 126 101 121 120 122 138 128 135 103 119 158 123 185 109 169 271 150 122 153 156 127 148 145 124 111 134 161 135 109 140 143 H:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Street Improvements.dwg 9/12/2019 2:37:40 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 3: Street Improvements September 2019 FEETSCALE 0 150 300 R Proposed Bituminous Roadway and Driveway Proposed Concrete Curb Proposed Concrete Driveway Phase 1 Construction (2020) Phase 2 Construction (2021) Legend GreylockButte AvenueYancey Court Cimarr o n Ci r cl e Palomino D r i v e Shast a C o u r t Beaumont CourtSabra CourtCimarron Road 103 115 123 135 147 157 169 100 144 136 128 120 102 127 139 130185 191 213 237 245 251 257 263 269 275 281 287 303 305 307 12521 12525 12529 12533 1253012522309 315 367 326 320 302 296 290284278 272 266 260254248 242 214 208 202 196 190 184 176 101 103 105 106 104 102 CourtChaparral DriveChaparral C irc le 112 137 193 121 113 104 177 126 101 121 120 122 138 128 135 103 119 158 123 185 109 169 271 150 122 153 156 127 148 145 124 111 134 161 135 109 140 143 H:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Street Improvements.dwg 9/12/2019 2:37:44 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 3A: Street Improvements September 2019 R FEETSCALE 0 80 160 Proposed Bituminous Roadway and Driveway Proposed Concrete Curb Proposed Concrete Driveway Legend P Surrey T r ail Cimarr o n C o u r t Greylock Pennock AvenueHidde n Mea d o w R oa d Cedar Avenue (MN-77)Cimarron Road 257 263 269 275 281 287 303 305 307 12521 12525 12529 12533 1253012522309 315 341 349 355 361 367 373 379 385 391 403 404400104 108 116 144 100 112 120 122 132140 136 137 121 141 135 129 123 117 111 394 376 366 358 352 346340 100 108 116 124 117 109 101 326 320 302 296 290284278 272 266 260254 Court Hidden Meadow Court 169 161H:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Street Improvements.dwg 9/12/2019 2:37:47 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 3B: Street Improvements September 2019 FEETSCALE 0 80 160 R Proposed Bituminous Roadway and Driveway Proposed Concrete Curb Proposed Concrete Driveway Legend CL ROWROW APPROXIMATE 24' WIDE RURAL ROADWAY CL ROWROW EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING TURF SLOPING CL ROWROW CL ROWROW 24' WIDE FACE-TO-FACE URBAN ROADWAY DRIVEWAY PATCH TURF SLOPING 26' WIDE FACE-TO-FACE URBAN ROADWAY DRIVEWAY PATCH TURF SLOPING 32' WIDE FACE-TO-FACE URBAN ROADWAY DRIVEWAY PATCH TURF SLOPING H:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Typical Sections.dwg 9/12/2019 2:38:02 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 4: Street Section Options September 2019 >>>>>S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S l l l llll l l ll l l l l ll llll llll l l l l llll lllllllll l l l l ll l llllll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lllllllllll l llllllllllllW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>D D D D D D D D D S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llllllllllllll lllllllll l l l l lllllllllllllllllllll l lllll l llllll l l S S S S >>>>>>>llllllllllD SD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >ll lllll l l l llllllll S S S S D S S S S S S S S S SSS S S S SS S D S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S D D D S S S S S S S S S S S S S >CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVTCLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVTCLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVTCLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVTCLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVTCLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT S S CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT S CLVT CLVT CLVT S S CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT S S CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVT CLVTCLVT S D S S CLVT CLVT CLVT S S CLVT SCLVT CLVT CLVT S S CLVT CLVT CLVTCLVT l>> l >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lll l l>>>> > >lll>>>S S ll>>>>>> >> l l l lllllllllll l l l l l l l l ll l l l llll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>llll l l l l>l l>>>l l l l>> >>>>>>llllllllllll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Surrey T r a il Cimarr o n C o u r t GreylockButte AvenueYancey Court Cimarr o n Ci r cl e Palomino Dr i v e Shast a C o u r t Beaumont CourtSabra CourtPennock AvenueInterstate 35EHidde n Mea d o w R oa d Cedar Avenue (MN-77)Cimarron Road BD-P13 WVR-P11.3 WVR-P11.2 WVR-P11.1 WVR-P11 WVR-P111 WVR-P6 WVR-P112 BD-P15 BD-P14 BD-P140 Court Chaparral Drive103 115 123 135 147 157 169 100 144 136 128 120 102 127 139 130185 191 213 237 245 251 257 263 269 275 281 287 303 305 307 12521 12525 12529 12533 1253012522309 315 341 349 355 361 367 373 379 385 391 403 404400104 108 116 144 100 112 120 122132140 136 137 121 141 135 129 123 117 111 394 376 366 358 352 346340 100108 116 124 117 109 101 326 320 302 296 290284278 272 266260254248 242 214 208 202 196 190 184 176 101 103 105 102 106 104 102 112 137 193121 113 104 177 126 101 121 120 122 138 128 135 103 119 158 123 185 109 169 271 150 122 153 156 127 148 145 124 111 134 161 135 109 140 143 WVR-P130 >> l > >> l >S S D Sanitary Sewer Watermain Storm Sewer Existing Proposed Legend > Full Replacement Lining Phase 1 (2020) Phase 2 (2021)H:\APVA\N14117293\CAD\C3D\FIGR-2020-101-Easement Areas.dwg 9/19/2019 12:03:23 PMR 2020 and 2021 Street and Utility Improvements City of Apple Valley Figure 5: Proposed Easement Areas September 2019 R FEETSCALE 0 150 300 Ponding Area Approximate 100-Year High Water Level Easement Acquisition from Property I T E M: 4.G. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A dopt Resolution A pproving P lans and Specifications for City Hall - L ower L evel B uildout and A uthorizing A dvertising for Receipt of B ids at 10:00 a.m. on October 15, 2019 S taff Contact: Charles Grawe, A ssistant City A dministrator Department / Division: Administration / I nformation Technologies AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Adopt resolution approving plans and specifications for C ity Hall - Lower Level Buildout and authorizing advertising for receipt of bids at 10:00 a.m. on October 15, 2019. S UM M ARY: Attached for consideration is a resolution approving plans and specifications and setting the date for receipt of bids for lower level finishing and additional remodeling primarily in the City Hall portion of the Municipal C enter. T he C ity has reached near full occupancy in the upper two levels and is now looking at finishing the lower level of C ity Hall portion of the Municipal Center. B AC K G RO UND: T he City opened the Municipal C enter in 2001. A t the time of construction, the lower level of the City Hall side was left largely unfinished for future expansion. Nearly all the available workstations on the first two floors are now occupied. Additional office space is necessary to accommodate future employee and volunteer growth. T his project has been anticipated in the Capital Improvements Program (C IP). Staff updated the C ity C ouncil on the project at the informal City C ouncil workshop meeting held on J uly 11, 2019. Staff has conducted a needs assessment and identified options to better use space by not only finishing the lower level, but also making a few changes to room uses on the second floor. T he preliminary estimate for the cost of work based on the square footage of the lower level alone was $750,000 to $1,000,000. T he optimization plan that considers improving a number of uses on the first and second floors expands the square footage involved by about 20 percent. With the expanded scope, the current cost estimate is at $1,200,000. Staff estimates an additional expense of up to $200,000 for the security access system, security camera system, audio-video system, and furnishings for the finished areas. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution approving plans and specifications for City Hall - Lower Level Buildout and authorizing advertising for receipt of bids. B UD G E T I M PAC T: Staff proposes to use three funding sources for the project. Capital needs for the cable television operation are eligible expenses for use of restricted Public Education Government (PEG) fees. Based on the floor space for cable operations, these funds would be eligible to cover approximately $265,000 of the project. Additional funds yet to be determined would be eligible for cable furnishings. T he C ity has been using a closed cable capital fund to fund various security projects around the city. T here is approximately $250,000 from this fund that would available for the project. T he remaining funds would come from the Municipal Building Fund. AT TAC HM E NT S : Resolution Advertisement for Bid CITY OF APPLE VALLEY RESOLUTION NO. 2019- RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING RECEIPT OF SEALED BIDS FOR CITY HALL – LOWER LEVEL BUILDOUT WHEREAS, the Apple Valley City Council has reviewed plans and specifications for City Hall – Lower Level Buildout; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the interests of the City would be best served by receiving sealed bids based on said plans and specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to receive sealed bids at the time and place specified in the form of notice attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. The Clerk is further authorized and directed to cause an advertisement for said bids to be posted on the City’s website not less than ten (10) days prior to the opening of said bids. ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2019. _____________________________________ Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk CNH# 19028 Apple Valley Municipal Center 2019 Remodel September 16, 2019 ©CNH Architects, Inc Apple Valley, MN 1 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 00 11 17 DOCUMENT 00 11 17 – ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS City Hall – Lower Level Buildout (Also known as Apple Valley Municipal Center 2019 Remodel) The City of Apple Valley, 7100 147th Street W, Apple Valley, MN 55124 will be receiving a lump sum, single prime sealed bids for the City Hall – Lower Level Buildout (also known as Apple Valley Municipal Center 2019 Remodel), until 10:00am on October 15, 2019. Bids will be received at the Apple Valley Municipal Center, 7100 147th Street W, Apple Valley, MN 55124, at which time they will be opened and read aloud. The work for this project includes the general construction as indicated in the Contract Documents. A pre-bid conference will be held at Apple Valley Municipal Center at 2:00pm on October 7, 2019. All bids must be sealed and marked for the appropriate contract for which the bid is submitted. Bids shall be submitted in accordance with the Bidding Documents prepared by CNH Architects, Inc, 7300 W 147th St, Suite 504, Apple Valley, MN 55124 and dated September 16, 2019. Bids received after this time will not be accepted. No oral or fax bids will be accepted. Documents will be available on or about September 27, 2019, for public inspection at the Owner’s office, Architect’s office, and the following exchanges: The Blue Book Building and Construction NETWORK, 5001 American Blvd. W., Suite 825, Bloomington, MN 55437 Bidding documents including addenda can be downloaded at no cost from the Project Plan Room Website setup by CNH Architect. Contact CNH Architects at (952) 431-4433 or plans@cnharch.com to receive access to this website. Plan Holders are parties that have requested access to the Project Plan Room Website. Plan Holders may be notified via email as addenda are issued but are responsible to check the website for all addenda prior to submitting a bid. Parties that download the bidding documents and need to have them printed elsewhere are solely responsible for those printing costs. Paper copies of the bidding documents will not be distributed by the Owner, Architects, or its agents. Parties downloading bidding documents from other sources (such as builder exchanges) may contact CNH Architects to be added to the Plan Holders List but will need to obtain addenda from their original source unless the party specifically request access to the Project Plan Room Website. The bids shall include corporate surety bond, cashier’s check, or certified check in an amount equal to five (5%) percent of the base bid and payable to the Owner as a guaranty of the prompt execution of the contract. The materials, products and equipment described in the Bidding Documents are to be met by bidders. Written requests for approval of substitutions maybe submit by bidders for consideration by the Architect. Requests must be received by the Architect at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the bid date and shall include sufficient data to describe the substitution and any impact it would have on other work. If the Architect approves a proposed substitution, the approval will be indicated in an addendum. No substitutions will be considered after the Contract award unless specifically provided in the Contract Documents. Contractor shall provide a Performance Bond and Labor and Material Payment Bond for 100% of the Contract Amount. Bids may not be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the opening without the consent of the Owner. The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive irregularities and informalities therein, and further reserves the right to award the contract in the best interest of the Owner. END OF SECTION 00 11 17 I T E M: 4.H. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: Water E fficiency Grant S taff Contact: Matt Saam, Public Works Director Department / Division: P ublic Works Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: 1. Authorize submittal of a Water Efficiency Grant application to the Met C ouncil. 2. Approve a J oint Powers A greement (J PA) with Dakota County for Water Efficiency Grant administrative services, subject to final approval by the C ity Attorney and the City Administrator. S UM M ARY: T he Met C ouncil is currently accepting applications from municipal water providers for a Water Efficiency Grant. T he grant itself will provide a portion of the cost (through a rebate program) for the replacement of water using devices with more efficient devices that use less water. Examples of some of these devices include: clothes washers, toilets, and irrigation (sprinkler) controllers/heads. If successful in obtaining a grant, staff will bring back a Grant Agreement to Council later this fall/winter with details on our grant program. Additional grant information is provided on the attached document. Dakota C ounty Groundwater Division has approached City staff about partnering on the Water Efficiency Grant being offered from the Metropolitan Council. Knowing the burden that municipal wells can put on groundwater levels, the C ounty Groundwater division sees a benefit to helping the C ity administer and offer this grant program to property owners. Specifically, the C ounty is offering in-kind staff services to administer the grant program. City staff would then only need to process reimbursements to residents upon approval from the County. T he way the grant works is that property owners, who replace a water using device with one of the approved efficient devices, would apply for a rebate toward a portion of the device replacement cost. C ounty staff would do the grant administration, reviewing each rebate application to ensure that it complies with the grant guidelines. Upon approval, the County would let the City know to process a rebate to the owner. B AC K G RO UND: T his is the second time in the last 5-years that the Met C ouncil has offered this grant program. In 2015, the Met Council received $500,000 from the Legislature for the grant. T his time around, the grant program is funded with $750,000 appropriated by the 2019 Minnesota Legislature. T he Water Efficiency Grant Program is effective from September 30, 2019, to J une 30, 2022. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to municipalities that manage municipal water systems. T he Met C ouncil will provide up to 75% of the program cost while the municipality must provide the remaining 25%. Municipalities are expected to use the combined Met C ouncil and municipality funds to run their own grant or rebate programs. Municipalities will be responsible for the design and operation of their rebate or grant program and its details. Grants will be made available in amounts with a minimum of $2,000 and a maximum of $50,000. G rants are only for water efficiency programs offering rebates or grants to property owners who are customers of the municipal water supply system and who replace specified water using devices with approved devices that use substantially less water. Grantees will be required to provide estimated water savings achieved through this program for C lean Water, Land & Legacy Amendment reporting purposes. B UD G E T I M PAC T: Staff is planning to apply for the maximum grant amount of $50,000. T his would require a 25% C ity match amount of $16,667 for a total project cost of $66,667. If successful in obtaining a grant, there are funds budgeted in the Water Fund to provide the C ity’s 25% portion of the grant program. T here is no budget impact for the J PA with the County. AT TAC HM E NT S : Application Background Material Agreement Metropolitan Council Water Efficiency Grant Application Form Applicant Information: Municipality: _________________________________________________________________ Municipal Utility: ______________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________ Primary Contact Information: Municipality primary authorized representative (all correspondence regarding the Water Efficiency Grant Program should be addressed to individual named below): NAME: _________________________________________________________________ TITLE: _________________________________________________________________ STREET: _________________________________________________________________ CITY, ZIP: _________________________________________________________________ PHONE: _________________________________________________________________ EMAIL: _________________________________________________________________ Secondary Contact Information: Municipality secondary authorized representative: NAME: _________________________________________________________________ TITLE: _________________________________________________________________ STREET: _________________________________________________________________ CITY, ZIP: _________________________________________________________________ PHONE: _________________________________________________________________ EMAIL: _________________________________________________________________ Municipal Total Per Capita Water Use (2018): _________________ (gallons per person-day) Municipal Residential Per Capita Water Use (2018): _________________ (gallons per person-day) Municipal Ratio of Peak Month to Winter Month Water Use (2018): ________________ Municipality’s estimated annual water savings from proposed program: _______________ (gallons) Municipal Utility Grant or Rebate Program Design: Requested Grant Amount (must equal 75% of total program budget): $_____________________ Required Utility Matching Amount (must equal 25% of total program budget): $______________ Will your program be a grant program or rebate program? _______________________________ Estimated Number of Items: Item Estimated Number Toilets Irrigation Controllers Clothes Washing Machines Irrigation Spray Sprinkler Bodies Irrigation System Audits 2 Project Work Plan and Schedule:* Task Description Responsible Person Start Date Completion Date * Municipal utility may create own project plan and schedule form 3 Communications to Property Owners: How will your program be advertised (check all that apply): Newsletter ____ Print Media ____ Email ____ Twitter ____ Website____ Radio ____ Television ____ Facebook ____ Nextdoor ____ Other Social Media ____ Please attach examples of proposed newsletter, print media, or email communications Critical Points to Remember: • The applying municipality must be a water supplier • New construction and new developments are not eligible • Funds are for rebates or grants only; consulting and city staff time are ineligible • Combined Council and municipality funds cannot pay for 100% of an eligible activity’s cost • A portion of each eligible activity’s cost must be paid by the property owner • Grant recipients must display the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment logo and the Metropolitan Council logo on program-related web pages and paper communications 4 1 Metropolitan Council Water Efficiency Grant Program Overview The Metropolitan Council (Council) will implement a water efficiency grant program effective September 30, 2019 to June 30, 2022. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to municipalities that manage municipal water systems. The Council will provide 75% of the program cost; the municipality must provide the remaining 25%. Municipalities will use the combined Council and municipality funds to run their own grant or rebate programs. Grants will be made available in amounts with a minimum of $2,000 and a maximum of $50,000. Grantees will be required to provide estimated water savings achieved through this program for Clean Water, Land & Legacy Amendment reporting purposes. Legislative Directive - Minnesota 2019 Session Law $375,000 the first year and $375,000 the second year are for the water demand reduction grant program to encourage municipalities in the metropolitan area to implement measures to reduce water demand to ensure the reliability and protection of drinking water supplies. Fiscal year 2020 appropriations are available until June 30, 2021, and fiscal year 2021 appropriations are available until June 30, 2022. Grant Program Goal The goal of the water efficiency grant program is to support technical and behavioral changes that improve municipal water use efficiency in the seven-county metropolitan area. Critical Points to Remember • The applying municipality must be a water supplier • New construction and new developments are not eligible • Funds are for rebates or grants only; consulting and city staff time are ineligible • Combined Council and municipality funds cannot pay for 100% of an eligible activity’s cost • A portion of each eligible activity’s cost must be paid by the property owner • Grant recipients must display the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment logo and the Metropolitan Council logo on program-related web pages and paper communications Grant Program Structure: Administration and Funding The Water Efficiency Grant Program will be administered by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and will be funded with $750,000 appropriated by the 2019 Minnesota Legislature. Grant applications will be reviewed and ranked by the MCES Water Supply Planning Unit staff. Grants are only for water efficiency programs offering rebates or grants to property owners who are customers of the municipal water supply system and who replace specified water using devices with approved devices that use substantially less water. 2 Grants will be awarded to municipalities in amounts ranging from $2,000 to $50,000 for providing rebates or grants to property owners. Municipalities will be responsible for the design and operation of their rebate or grant program and its details. Grant payments to the municipality will be for 75% of approved program amounts. The municipality must provide the remaining 25% of the program cost. Municipality rebates or grants are eligible for reimbursement on device replacements conducted September 30, 2019 through June 30, 2022. Here is an example showing the grant funding design: Eligibility Per legislative language, the grant program is limited to municipalities in the seven-county metropolitan area. Municipalities eligible per above must apply to participate and, if approved, sign a standard Council Grant Agreement, before any eligible rebates or grants can be submitted for reimbursement. Agreements shall require that municipalities: • Entirely pass through grants received (as is being done by MCES) • Verify purchase of devices to receive grants • Retain records and cooperate with any audits • Conduct all communications with property owners and ensure all written communications to property owners include both the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment and the Metropolitan Council’s logo • Provide quantitative information for state reporting purposes Eligible water efficiency devices consist of the following: • Toilet replacement with a US EPA WaterSense labeled toilet • Irrigation controller replacement with a US EPA WaterSense labeled controller • Clothes washing machine replacement with an US DOE Energy Star labeled clothes washing machine • Irrigation spray sprinkler body replacement with a US EPA WaterSense labeled spray sprinkler body • Irrigation system audit by an Irrigation Professional certified by a US EPA WaterSense program Expenses eligible for reimbursement are the out-of-pocket cost of the device and its installation only, not to include any owner labor costs. In addition, new construction and new developments are ineligible, as this program is intended as a current infrastructure replacement program. Application Process • Applicants must be municipal water suppliers • Municipalities will submit MCES supplied application form by September 30, 2019. Required information includes: o the municipality’s rebate or grant program design and work plan o proposed examples of communications to property owners o requested total grant amount o estimated annual amount of water saved by the applying municipality 3 • Application form is available at: https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Funding- Finance/Available-Funding-Grants.aspx • Submit competed application to: brian.davis@metc.state.mn.us • Metropolitan Council will notify municipalities of grant awards and provide grant agreements by December 2, 2019. Proposal Selection Criteria In the event that funds requested exceed funds available, the following criteria will be used to determine the amount granted to a given municipality: • Municipalities that are supplied 100% with groundwater • Municipalities with identified water supply issues in Master Water Supply Plan Community Profiles or Local Water Supply Plans • Municipalities’ ratio of peak monthly water use to winter monthly water use • Municipalities’ average residential per capita water use • The order in which applications are received and until grant funds are completely committed Funding Process and Reporting Requirements • Utilizing forms provided by MCES, the following information must be reported on a quarterly basis: o Number, type and amount of rebates or grants provided to property owners, along with each property address o Estimated annual gallons of water saved per device installation o Municipality matching funds disbursed o Number of unmet funding requests from property owners, if any • Upon review and confirmation of the above information, MCES will process a grant payment in the amount of 75% of approved total rebates or grants for the reporting period. • MCES will provide confirmation of grant balances available upon request and reserves the right to amend grant agreements, in collaboration with grantee municipality, if quarterly reporting indicates rebate or grant programs will not fully utilize grant awards within the grant period. Qualified Activities • Toilet replacement with a US EPA WaterSense labeled toilet: http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/product_search.html • Irrigation controller replacement with a US EPA WaterSense labeled controller: https://www.epa.gov/watersense/product-search • Clothes washing machine replacement with an US DOE Energy Star labeled clothes washing machine: https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-clothes-washers/results • Irrigation spray sprinkler body replacement with a US EPA WaterSense labeled spray sprinkler body https://www.epa.gov/watersense/product-search • Irrigation system audit by an Irrigation Professionals certified by a US EPA WaterSense program https://www.epa.gov/watersense/find-pro 4 Reporting Example Community Property Street Address Property Type Device Replaced Cost per Device # of Devices Rebate or Grant per Device Est. Annual Water (Gal) Saved Per Device Total Rebate or Grant Municipality Contribution Eligible Grant Amount Anytown 652 Silvis St Residential Clothes Washer $624.60 1 $150.00 3,000 $150.00 $37.50 $112.50 Anytown 1952 Ingram Way Residential Irrigation Controller $199.99 1 $100.00 8,800 $100.00 $25.00 $75.00 Anytown 630 Gibbons Ave Residential Clothes Washer $599.90 1 $150.00 3,000 $150.00 $37.50 $112.50 Anytown 4424 Barriger Blvd Residential Toilet $168.00 1 $50.00 4,000 $50.00 $12.50 $37.50 1 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF DAKOTA AND THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY TO EXECUTE AND ADMINISTER A WATER EFFICIENCY GRANT REBATE PROGRAM This Agreement is between County of Dakota (County) and the City of Apple Valley (Municipality), collectively referred to as the “parties” where applicable. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes local governmental units to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, Dakota County and the Municipality are governmental units as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. § 471.59; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council will implement a water efficiency grant program effective September 30, 2019 to June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, the goal of the program is to support technical and behavioral changes that improve municipal water use efficiency in the seven-county metro area; and WHEREAS, grants of up to $50,000 will be awarded to municipalities for providing rebates or grants to property owners on eligible devices to include: toilet replacement, irrigation controller replacement, clothes washing machine replacement, irrigation spray sprinkler body replacement, and irrigation system audits; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council’s projections of increased groundwater demand estimate that Dakota County may experience 20 to 30 feet of groundwater drawdown by 2040 with the most significant drawdown anticipated to occur in Apple Valley; and WHEREAS, Dakota County and the City of Apple Valley desire to jointly administer a water efficiency grant program, if awarded; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that the County and Municipality shall derive from this Agreement, the County and Municipality hereby enter into this Agreement for the purpose stated herein. 2 SECTION 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cooperation and funding between the County and the Municipality for execution and administration of a water efficiency grant rebate program (rebate program). . SECTION 3 TERM This Agreement shall be in effect upon receipt by the Municipality of a grant by the Metropolitan Council and shall continue in effect until June 30, 2022, or until all grant funds have been expended, or until termination in accordance with the provisions herein. SECTION 4 COOPERATION The County and the Municipality agree to cooperate and use their reasonable efforts to ensure prompt implementation of the various provisions of this Agreement and to, in good faith, undertake resolution of any dispute in an equitable and timely manner. SECTION 5 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES 5.1 County Responsibilities. The County shall: A. Develop and distribute outreach materials and eligible water efficiency device rebate application forms B. Promote the rebate program via the County website, social media platforms, press releases, and inclusion in newsletters and print media C. Review submitted rebate applications and receipts for accuracy and completeness D. Submit an itemized list of approved rebate applications to the Municipality at least monthly for rebate payment to the property owner E. Maintain a shared database with the Municipality of all application s and expenditures F. Retain records and cooperate with any audits by the Metropolitan Council G. Inspect rebate related installation or audits in cooperation with the Municipality H. Assist with identification of water efficiency needs, as applicable I. Provide a point of contact for inquiries regarding the program and rebate status J. Provide a dedicated grant email for direct contact to County coordinator for residents and Municipality daily communication. 5.2 Municipality Responsibilities. The Municipality shall: A. Develop and supply outreach and communications materials to Municipal customers B. Promote rebate program via the City’s website, social media, water consumer reports, water utility bills, and other print publications 3 C. Provide funding for 25 percent Metropolitan Council grant match, and any cost related to program printing and postage D. Provide rebate payment to Municipality applicant via water utility bill credits or rebate check E. Identify water efficiency needs and high priority areas, as applicable F. Communicate to County’s dedicated program coordinator/ administrator any and all plans or unforeseen circumstances prior to impacting rebate applicants. SECTION 6 FUNDING 6.1 REBATE FUNDING AMOUNT. The total allocated funding for the grant rebate program shall not exceed $66,666. With $50,000 provided by the Metropolitan Council and $16,666 provided by the Municipality. 6.2 REBATE PAYMENT. The County shall submit an itemized list of approved rebate applications to the Municipality at least monthly. The Municipality will provide the rebate payment to the rebate recipient via a water utility bill credit, or through a mailed rebate check. Grant rebates shall be paid to the approved applicant within 60 days from application date. 6.3 ELIGIBLE EXPENSES. Rebate funds can only be used for the purchase of eligible devices and its installation only, not to include any owner labor costs. Eligible water efficiency devices consist of the following: A. Toilet replacement with a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense labeled toilet B. Irrigation controller replacement with a US EPA WaterSense labeled controller C. Clothes washing machine replacement with an US Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Star labeled clothes washing machine D. Irrigation spray sprinkler body replacement with a US EPA WaterSense labeled spray sprinkler body E. Irrigation system audit by an Irrigation Professional certified by a US EPA WaterSense program . SECTION 8 INDEMNIFICATION 8.1 IN GENERAL. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for the acts of its officers, employees or agents and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its officers, employees or agents. 8.2 SURVIVORSHIP. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. SECTION 9 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND LIAISONS 4 9.1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES: The following named persons are designated the Authorized Representatives of the parties for purposes of this Agreement. These persons have authority to bind the party they represent and to consent to modifications, except that the authorized representative shall have only the authority specifically or generally granted by their respective governing boards. Notice required to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided to the following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, or in a modification of this Agreement. TO THE COUNTY Matt Smith County Manager Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 TO THE MUNICIPALITY Tom Lawell City Administrator 7100 147th St. W. Apple Valley, MN 55124 In addition, notification to the County regarding termination under Section 11 of this Agreement by the other party shall be provided to the Office of the Dakota County Attorney, Civil Division, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033. 9.2 LIAISONS. To assist the parties in the day-to-day performance of this Agreement, to ensure compliance, and provide ongoing consultation, a liaison s hall be designated by the County and the Municipality. The County and the Municipality shall keep each other continually informed, in writing, of any change in the designated liaison. At the time of execution of this Agreement, the following persons are the designated liaisons: County Liaison: Vanessa Demuth, or successor Telephone: (952) 891-7010 Email: vanessa.demuth@co.dakota.mn.us Municipality Liaison: Matt Saam, P.E. Telephone: 952-953-2412 Email: msaam@cityofapplevalley.org SECTION 10 TERMINATION 10.1 IN GENERAL. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days’ written notice, of its intent to terminate, to the other party. Notice of Termination shall be made by pre-paid postage mail or personal delivery to the authorized representative of the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not discharge any liability, responsibility or right of any party, which arises from the performance of or failure to adequately perform the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 10.2 TERMINATION FOR LACK OF FUNDING. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, either party may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Agencies, or other funding source, or if its funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow payment of the rebate amounts due under this Agreement. Written notice of termination sent by email or facsimile is sufficient notice under this section. Neither party is obligated to pay for any services that are provided after written notice of termination for lack of funding. SECTION 11 GENERAL PROVISIONS 11.1 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDARDS. The County and Municipality agree to abide by all 5 federal, state or local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereafter adopted pertaining to this Agreement. 11.2 CONTRACT RIGHTS CUMULATIVE NOT EXCLUSIVE A. All remedies available to either party for breach of this Agreement are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately, and the exercise of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of such remedy to the exclusion of other remedies. The ri ghts and remedies provided in this Agreement are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. B. Waiver. Any waiver is only valid when reduced to writing, specifically identified as a waiver, and signed by the waiving party’s Authorized Representative. A waiver is not an amendment to the Contract. The County’s or Municipality’s failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. 11.3 RECORDS RETENTION AND AUDITS. Each party’s bonds, records, documents, papers, accounting procedures and practices, and other records relevant to this Agreement are subject to the examination, duplication, transcription and audit by the other party, the Legislative Auditor or State Auditor under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5. If any funds provided under this Agreement use federal funds these records are also subject to review by the Comptroller General of the United States and his or her approved representative. Following termination of this Agreement, the parties must keep these records for at least six years or longer if any audit-in-progress needs a longer retention time. 11.4 MODIFICATIONS. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing and signed by the authorized representatives of the County and Municipality. 11.5 ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign any of its rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Consent to assign may be subject to conditions. 11.6 GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES. For purposes of this Agreement, all data on individuals collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated shall be administered consistent with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13. 11.7 MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive and procedural laws of the State of Minnesota, without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws. All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in Dakota County, Minnesota or U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 11.8 MERGER. This Agreement is the final expression of the agreement of the parties and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon and shall supersede all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. There are no representations, warranties, or provisions, either or al or written, not contained herein. 11.9 SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable. If any part of this Agreement is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement unless the part or parts that are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially impair the value of the entire Agreement with respect to either party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s) indicated below. 6 COUNTY OF DAKOTA COUNTY _ _ Matt Smith, County Manager Date of Signature: _ _ CITY OF APPLE VALLEY _ _, Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor Date of Signature: _ _ APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ Assistant County Attorney/Date Attest: _ _ KS-19-___ Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk Date of Signature: _ County Board Res. No. 19- I T E M: 4.I . C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Agreement with I ndependent School District 196 for P olice L iaison Services S taff Contact: Nick Francis, Police Captain Department / Division: P olice Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve Agreement with Independent School District 196 for Police Liaison Services. S UM M ARY: With the agreement in place, the City of Apple Valley will receive payment from School District 196 for police liaison services in the three middle schools and two high schools (with as needed service to the School of Environmental Services and the A LC ). B AC K G RO UND: T he C ity of Apple Valley and School District 196 have had an ongoing collaboration over the years to provide resource officers in Apple Valley schools. T his agreement is a continuation of the C ity's collaboration with the School District. B UD G E T I M PAC T: T he City will receive funding from School District 196 in the amount of $167,617.77 for police liaison services provided during the 2019-2020 school year. AT TAC HM E NT S : Agreement I T E M: 4.J . C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Agreement with Dermco-L aVine Construction Co., for Project 2019-159, W ildwood P ark Court S urface Replacement S taff Contact: Director Barry Bernstein Department / Division: Parks and Recreation Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve Agreement with Dermco-LaVine C onstruction Co., for Project 2019-159, Wildwood Park Court Surface Replacement, in the amount of $58,600.00. S UM M ARY: Dermco-LaVine C onstruction C o., has provided the lowest responsible quotation for the replacement of the tennis court surface at Wildwood Park A standard City of Apple Valley Agreement will be utilized. B AC K G RO UND: Written quotations were solicited for the purpose of replacing the vandalized tennis court surface at Wildwood Park. Vendor Total Dermco-LaVine Construction C o. $58,600.00 Surface Pro, LLC $63,250.00 C & C Courts IN C/Sport Court North $64,730.92 T hree quotations were received; Dermco-LaVine C onstruction C o., at $58,600.00; Surface Pro, LLC, at $63,250.00; and C & C C ourts IN C /Sport C ourt North at $64,730.92. Staff recommends entering into an agreement with Dermco-LaVine Construction Co., for the Wildwood Park Court Surface Replacement project. B UD G E T I M PAC T: League of MN C ities insurance will be utilized. AT TAC HM E NT S : Quotation I T E M: 4.K. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Change Order No. 1 to A greement with Keys Well Drilling Company for Project 2018- 146, 2018 Observation Well I nstallation, and A pprove Acceptance and Final P ayment S taff Contact: Carol Blommel J ohnson, Public Works Superintendent - Utilities Department / Division: Utilities Division AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve Change Order No. 1 to the agreement with Keys Well Drilling C ompany, with an addition of $3,576.00; and accept Project 2018-146, 2018 Observation Well Installation, as complete and authorize final payment in the amount of $2,407.00. S UM M ARY: Keys Well Drilling has completed the installation of the observation well located in the boulevard at 14255 J ohnny C ake Ridge Road Park West. T his is the third and final payment request for Project 2018-146. T he contractor has met all obligations and performed services in a professional and satisfactory manner. Due to the underlying geology being slightly different from the municipal wells previously constructed in the area, additional work and components were needed to complete the installation. A change order in the amount of $3,576.00 has been added to the final contract amount. B AC K G RO UND: T he work was done as a requirement of the C ity's Water Appropriation Permit from the Department of Natural Resources. T he well will be used to evaluate and monitor the sustainability of the C ity's water supply wells in the J ordan aquifer. On August 23, 2018, the C ouncil approved an agreement with A E2S for engineering services for design and construction of the observation well. On November 15, 2018, the C ouncil approved an agreement with Keys Well Drilling Company for the installation of the observation well. B UD G E T I M PAC T: Funding for the observation well construction will be from the Water Utility Operations Fund. Expenses C onstruction $44,564.00 C hange Order No. 1 $3,576.00 Engineering (A E2S), Admin, Legal $26,300.00 MD H Grant ($10,000.00) Total C ost $64,440.00 T he electrical and SC A D A (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) costs are not included in this phase of the project. AT TAC HM E NT S : Change Order Document(s) F inal Pay Documents I T E M: 4.L . C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Change Order No. 1 to A greement with Sewer Services, I nc., for P roject 2019-147, 2019 Sump Catch B asin Cleaning - Residential, and A pprove Acceptance and Final P ayment S taff Contact: Carol Blommel J ohnson, Utilities Superintendent Department / Division: Utilities Division AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve C hange Order No. 1 to the agreement with Sewer Services, Inc., for a deduction of $340.00 for Project 2019-147, 2019 Sump C atch Basin C leaning - Residential, and approve acceptance and final payment in the amount of $39,865.00. S UM M ARY: Sewer Services, Inc., has removed the sediment from 469 sump catch basins on City residential streets. Sediment removal from sump catch basins is a requirement of the N PD ES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) Permit. B AC K G RO UND: On J uly 11, 2019, the C ity C ouncil approved an agreement with Sewer Services, Inc. for sediment removal from approximately 473 sump catch basins on select C ity residential streets. A unit price of $85.00 per structure was quoted for the project. Sewer Services, Inc. cleaned 469 sump catch basins for a total cost of $39,865.00. B UD G E T I M PAC T: Funding for this project is included in the Public Works Utilities Division operating budget, Storm Water 5505-6249. Project C ost 2019-147 5505.6249 Agreement Amount (473 Sump Catch Basins)$40,205.00 Deduct 4 Sump Catch Basin $ 340.00 Final Project C ost $39,865.00 AT TAC HM E NT S : Change Order Document(s) F inal Pay Documents I T E M: 4.M. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove P ersonnel Report S taff Contact: Melissa Haas, Human Resources Manager Department / Division: Human Resources Division AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve the personnel report. S UM M ARY: T he employment actions attached to this memo are recommended for City C ouncil Approval. B AC K G RO UND: T he City Council's approval of the Personnel Report includes the ratification of the City Administrator's actions in carrying out the terms and conditions of the employment of the City personnel. B UD G E T I M PAC T: Budgeted positions. AT TAC HM E NT S : Personnel Report PERSONNEL REPORT September 26, 2019 City of Apple Valley Human Resources EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS The following employment actions are recommended for City Council approval: First Name Last Name Action Position Status Dept. Base Pay Rate Pay Type Pay Scale Date (on or about) Samantha Berger Hire Water Resources Specialist Full-Time, Regular 5505 $ 33.00 Hourly 160 9/30/2019 Brice Hanson HIre Police Officer Full-Time, Regular 1200 $ 5,027.00 Monthly U-P 9/30/2019 Debbie Hopps HIre Golf Outside Service Attendant Casual, Variable Hour 5105 $ 10.55 Hourly C-01 9/23/2019 Lauren Olson Hire Lead Skating Instructor I Casual, Variable Hour 5205 $ 10.30 Hourly C-10 9/16/2019 Bryndyn Shipquist Hire Maintenance I Casual, Seasonal 5105 $ 12.52 Hourly SM1 9/23/2019 Caron Wood Promotion Liquor Store Supervisor Part-Time, Regular 5060 $ 17.40 Hourly PT125 9/28/2019 The Council’s approval of the Personnel Report includes the ratification of the City Administrator’s actions in carrying out the terms and conditions of the employment of the City personnel. Page 1 of 1 I T E M: 4.N. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Consent A genda Description: A pprove Claims and B ills S taff Contact: Ron Hedberg, Finance Director Department / Division: Finance Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve claims and bills. S UM M ARY: Attached for C ity C ouncil review and approval are check registers for recent claims and bills. B AC K G RO UND: N/A B UD G E T I M PAC T: Check registers dated September 4, 2019, and September 11, 2019, in the amounts of $411,666.84, and $1,844,743.80, respectively. AT TAC HM E NT S : Claims and Bills Claims and Bills I T E M: 5.A. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Regular A genda Description: I ntroduction and Oath of Office of Police Officer Miranda Demo S taff Contact: Captain Greg Dahlstrom Department / Division: P olice Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: N/A S UM M ARY: T he Police C hief will introduce Officer Miranda Demo and the City C lerk will administer the oath of office. B AC K G RO UND: Officer Demo was hired in March of 2019 after a successful stint as a C ommunity Service Officer. She has since completed the field training program and currently works the afternoon shift. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A I T E M: 5.B. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Regular A genda Description: Minnesota Zoo S taff Contact: B ruce Nordquist, A I C P Community Development Director Department / Division: Community Development Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: 1. Proclaim a Business Leader in C onnection with Apple Valley's 50th Golden Year Celebration 2. Adopt a Resolution in Support of State Financial Assistance for the Minnesota Zoo S UM M ARY: In the months ahead, as part of our 50th Golden Year A nniversary C elebration, staff is planning to invite notable Apple Valley businesses to come before the C ity C ouncil to be recognized for their long-standing contributions to the community. T hese are businesses that have contributed to the economic well-being of the C ity and have demonstrated a long-term commitment to the vitality of the community and its residents. T he C ity is very fortunate to have many such businesses which help to strengthen the fabric of our community and contribute to our collective prosperity. While we will not be able to honor all such businesses during the year, it is our hope that highlighting some will emphasize the important role our businesses play in providing economic stability and community vibrancy for us all. T he Minnesota Zoo is a September recipient. Minnesota Zoo Director J ohn Frawley plans to attend. Minnesota Zoo Board C hair, Frank Weidner has also been invited if his schedule permits. T he proclamation follows their institutional mission, business growth and development, as a place to work, and as a community partner. Additionally, the Minnesota Zoo is advancing a 2019/2020 legislative campaign in support of a capital investment of $39 million to revitalize, preserve and invest in zoo facilities. Mr. Frawley may want to briefly speak to this campaign. B AC K G RO UND: N/A B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S : Proclamation Resolution Background Material Background Material Presentation Presentation CITY OF APPLE VALLEY WHEREAS, the State Legislature created the Minnesota Zoological Board in 1969 to identify the criteria for a zoological garden and evaluate locations in Anoka, Washington, Ramsey and Dakota County – the Lebanon Hills site; and WHEREAS, in June, 1970, the Metropolitan Council determined the Lebanon Hills location ranked highest in a detailed comparative evaluation and committed resources for Dakota County to purchase the property adjacent to Lebanon Hills Regional Park in May, 1971; and WHEREAS, after much planning and development, the Minnesota Zoological Garden, a.k.a “Minnesota Zoo”, opened May 22, 1978, in Apple Valley and today features a 485 acre campus, 4,900 animals, 121 buildings and related facilities and attracts 1.3 million visitors annually; and WHEREAS, from the beginning and today, the objective has remained to offer open style exhibits, a naturalistic setting, be the largest environmental educator in the state, have an annual economic impact measured in 2019 as $223 million and also offering 89,000 free admissions to qualifying visitors with 350 employees and 1,200 volunteers contributing 3 million hours since opening; and WHEREAS, many, many leaders, starting in 1969, played a role in achieving the institution we know today that seeks to grow and invest in connecting people to nature, where the School of Environmental Studies opened in 1995, where species survival plans and special recognition from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are too numerous to mention, and where the State of Minnesota contributes only 32 percent of the needed revenue; and WHEREAS, it takes an “extraordinary leader” and present Zoo Director John Frawley is that, with support from Frank Weidner as Minnesota Zoo Board Chair, by connecting people, animals and nature, having started as a keeper at the Zoo and building a career that would earn his return to lead the organization as both an Apple Valley and entire State of Minnesota asset. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby recognizes: “MINNESOTA ZOO” as a well-established business leader demonstrating on-going excellence in offering a full-service zoo experience, volunteerism, environmental stewardship and connection by people with nature during Apple Valley’s celebration of its 50 Golden Years. PROCLAIMED this 26th day of September, 2019. Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk CITY OF APPLE VALLEY RESOLUTION NO. 2019 -___ RESOLUTION SUPPORTING STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE MINNESOTA ZOO WHEREAS, the Minnesota Zoo, located in Apple Valley first opened in 1978 and has now been in existence for over 40 years; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Zoo is an important state asset in that it attracts approximately 1.3 million visitors per year, and has an annual economic impact on the State in excess of $223 million; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Zoo is facing significant financial pressures that have required the permanent and/or seasonal closure of various zoo exhibits and delays in revitalizing, preserving and adding new exhibits; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Zoo currently estimates those expenses to revitalize, preserve and add approximates $39 million; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Zoo is requesting this state financial assistance in 2019 and 2020 as a capital investment request; and WHEREAS, the Apple Valley City Council believes that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Apple Valley, Dakota County, and the State of Minnesota that the Minnesota Zoo be provided with additional state resources to better enable it to carry out its mission of connecting people, animals and nature. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, that it supports the Minnesota Zoo’s request for state financial assistance for the 2020 Capital Investment Request. ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2019. Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk 9/26/2019 1 2020 Capital Investment Request John Frawley, Director 2020 Bonding Request:Asset Preservation 9/26/2019 2 2020 Bonding Request:Revitalize the Zoo IMAX Theater NocturnalTrail Vet Hospital Treetop Trail 2020 Bonding Request Priorities •Treetop Trail ($11 million) •Revitalize the Zoo ($14 million) •Repurpose large format  theater  •Reopen Nocturnal Trail •Redo the animal hospital  •Repair of animal exhibit and  containment areas •Address outdated mechanical,  electrical and water treatment  systems •Re‐construct deteriorating  bridges, trails and roads  throughout the Zoo site Capital Request: $25 million Asset Preservation Request: $14 million Total Bonding Request: $39 million 9/26/2019 3 Video Thank you  for your  support! 9/26/2019 1 City of Apple Valley 50th Golden Year Proclamation Minnesota Zoo September 26, 2019 Johnny Cake Ridge Road Cedar Ave  9/26/2019 2 August 1970 and Today 9/26/2019 3 9/26/2019 4 April 2016 MN Zoo Director  John Frawley 9/26/2019 5 Minnesota Zoo Jack‐o‐Lantern Spectacular October 1st ‐ November 3rd City of Apple Valley 50th Golden Year Proclamation Minnesota Zoo I T E M: 5.C. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Regular A genda Description: P roclaim October 6 through 12, 2019, as "F ire P revention Week" and Authorize Activities P lanned at F ire S tations S taff Contact: Chuck Russell, F ire Chief Department / Division: Fire Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Proclaim October 6 through 12, 2019, as "Fire Prevention Week" and authorize activities planned at Fire Stations. S UM M ARY: Annually, the National Fire Protection Association (N FPA) along with fire departments nationwide recognize and participate in Fire Prevention Week commemorating the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Fire Prevention Week 2019 will be observed October 6 through 12, 2019. T his year's educational message is “Not every hero wears a cape. Plan and Practice your Escape!” B AC K G RO UND: An element of the Fire Department's mission is to provide community risk reduction through fire prevention education. T hroughout the year Firefighters teach life safety messages, especially during Fire Prevention Week. Every Fire Prevention Week Firefighters bring fire prevention education to each grade level at the elementary schools and assist with fire drills at every school throughout the C ity. Firefighters also host open houses at each of the three fire stations educating the community on fire safety. Open houses will take place from 6-9 p.m. on Tuesday, October 8, at Fire Station 1; 6-9 p.m. on Wednesday, October 9, at Fire Station 2; and 6-9 p.m. on T hursday, October 10, at Fire Station 3. T he public is invited to attend the open houses. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S : Proclamation Presentation CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, public safety is a top priority in Apple Valley; and WHEREAS, safety from fire is important to both citizens and local firefighters, who put their lives on the line with every response to fire; and WHEREAS, residents of Apple Valley must take action to prevent fires and to protect themselves if fire strikes; and WHEREAS, awareness of simple safety practices can help lower our local fire death and injury rates; and WHEREAS, working smoke alarms on every level and a home fire escape plan and regular drills are essential for every household in Apple Valley; and WHEREAS, Apple Valley is joining the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) in teaching lifesaving messages in conjunction with Fire Prevention Week; and WHEREAS, the Fire Prevention week 2019 theme, “Not every hero wears a cape. Plan and Practice your Escape!” is an important reminder for all citizens of Apple Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby proclaims the week of October 6-12, 2019, as: “FIRE PREVENTION WEEK” This week is commemorated across North America and supported by the public safety efforts of the fire departments, schools, and other safety advocates in conjunction with the NFPA. FURTHER, we call upon the people of Apple Valley to remember the Fire Prevention Week 2019 caution, “Not every hero wears a cape. Plan and Practice your Escape!”and urge all citizens to heed the advice, to make sure their homes have smoke alarms installed properly and that each one is less than 10 years old. PROCLAIMED this 26th day of September, 2019. ______________________________ Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk 9/26/2019 1 Tuesday, October 8th ~ 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Station 1 – located at 15000 Hayes Road Wednesday, October 9th ~ 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Station 2 – located at 13995 Galaxie Avenue Thursday, October 10th ~ 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Station 3 – located at 14195 Essex Avenue For more information visit www.applevalleyfire.org or call us at 952-953-2600 I T E M: 5.D. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Regular A genda Description: A dopt Resolution(s) Regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment Re-designating 23 A cres L ocated on Northwest Corner of 140th S treet W. and Garden View Drive (8661 140th Street W.) S taff Contact: Thomas L ovelace, City Planner Department / Division: Community Development Department Applicant: J oel Watrud P roject Number: P C19-09-P Applicant Date: 5/22/2019 60 Days: 120 Days: AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Consider amendment to the 2030 C omprehensive Plan Land Use Map to re-designate the Apple Valley Golf C ourse property, located at 8661 140th Street W., from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per acre), "MD" (Medium Density Residential/6-12 units per acre) and "HD" (High Density Residential/12+ units per acre). Attached are the following three resolutions for your consideration regarding this request: 1. Resolution N o. 1 authorizes submittal of the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Council. 2. Resolution No. 2 affirms the Planning C ommission's recommendation of the denial of the applicant's request. 3. If the C ity Council chooses to adopt resolution No. 2, the Council should also consider the adoption of resolution No. 3 directing the Planning C ommission to review and recommend an amendment to the subject property. S UM M ARY: Mr. J oel Watrud is the owner of the Apple Valley Golf C ourse located at 8661 140th Street W. Mr. Watrud is requesting the following amendments to the C ity's C omprehensive Land Use Map: 1. Re-designation of .5 acres from "P R" (Private Recreation) to "LD " (Low Density Residential/3-6 units per acre). 2. Re-designation of 14.5 acres from "P R" to "MD" (Medium Density Residential/6-12 units per acre). 3. Re-designation of 8 acres from "P R" to "HD" (High Density Residential/12+ units per acre). T he 23-acre golf course property is located at the northwest corner of 140th Street West and Garden View D rive. Adjacent uses include single-family residential to the north, single- family, two-family and multi-family residential to the west and south, and multi-family to the east. B AC K G RO UND: On J une 19, 2019, T he Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment request. T he hearing was opened, comments taken, and the hearing was closed. T he Planning C ommission considered the applicant's request at their August 7, 2019. T he Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the "LD" re-designation as requested, 5-2 to recommend denial of the "MD" request and 7-0 to recommend denial of the "HD" request. T hey also voted 5-2 to recommend denial of staff's recommendation to re- designate the proposed "HD" property to "MD". Please refer to the attachments for additional background information, which includes the staff reports and minutes from the J une 19, and August 7, Planning C ommission meetings. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S : Resolution Resolution Resolution Minutes Report Minutes Report Applicant L etter Background Material Background Material Background Material Correspondence L ocation Map Comp Plan Map Comp Plan Map Background Material Background Material Presentation CITY OF APPLE VALLEY RESOLUTION NO. 2019-___ A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPLE VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8661 140TH STREET WEST, APPLE VALLEY, MN WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.864, the City of Apple Valley (“City”) adopted its 2030 Comprehensive Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”.); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 473.175 and 473.864, any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan requires submittal to and action by the Metropolitan Council (“Met Council”) in the same manner as the original plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.858, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must be submitted to the Met Council following recommendation by the Apple Valley Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and after consideration but before final approval by the Apple Valley City Council (“Council”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.355, subd. 2, the Planning Commission may recommend an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council may propose an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan by resolution submitted to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.355, subd. 2, prior to adopting an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission is required to hold at least one public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.355, subd. 3, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission or until 60 days have elapsed from the date an amendment proposed by the Council was submitted to the Planning Commission for its recommendation; and WHEREAS, Joel Watrud (“Applicant”) is the owner of six parcels of land totaling approximately 23 acres within the City, which are legally described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto (“Property”); and WHEREAS, a privately owned and operated golf course has existed on the Property for decades; and WHEREAS, the Property is designated as “PR” (Private Recreation) within the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, in recognition of its historical use as a golf course; and 2 WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan describes the Property as being challenged to remain as presently used and that a change in land use must be carefully considered for the ability of the property to support the proposed use, the fit with the surrounding area and the overall plans of the City. The golf course is surrounded by residential uses that might also be evaluated for comparison to their density; and WHEREAS, the Applicant had requested the City to process an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to designate the Property to three land use categories under the Land Use section: .5 acre to “LD” (Low Density Residential); 14.5 acres to “MD” (Medium Density Residential), and 8 acres to “HD” (High Density Residential) (“Application”), which proposal is shown on Exhibit “B” attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to amend the application to remove a request for HD consideration. NOW THEREFORE, the Council, of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, does hereby direct the Planning Commission to consider and recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the Property, or portions thereof, to residential designation(s) under the Land Use section other than a designation of “HD”. ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2019. __________________________________ Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 2019 Excerpt from the August 7, 2019 meeting: 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Apple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendment – PC19-09-P City Planner Tom Lovelace stated Mr. Joel Watrud, the owner of the Apple Valley Golf Course located at 8661 140th Street West, is requesting the following amendments to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map: 1. Re-designate .5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential) 2. Re-designate 14.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) 3. Re-designate 8 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential) The 23-acre golf course property is located at the northwest corner of 140th Street West and Garden View Drive. Adjacent uses include single-family residential to the north, single-family, two-family and multi-family residential to the west and south, and multi-family to the east. A public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment requests was held on June 19, 2019. The hearing was opened, comments taken, and the hearing was closed. He addressed the comments and concerns raised by the public. Chair Melander inquired if the ponds could be relocated. Mr. Lovelace said yes and that the City Engineer may know better how this could be done. Commissioner Alwin commented that when they look at the proposals for the medium and high densities as they had in past developments, they pay a lot of attention to the flow and the transition from one density to the other. When he looks around this neighborhood there is a lot of low density and surrounding this site looks like all low density including the townhouse development to the east. He had concern that when you put the medium and high density right in the middle, then you lose the concept of the easy transition from one density to the other because you have a lot of low and then all of a sudden you have medium and high density which seems inconsistent with what was done in past developments. He talked about natural features like big grade differentials in other neighborhoods but he does not see that natural break here that makes for an easy transition. He said services are limited and located on the other side of McAndrews. Mr. Lovelace answered there is a hierarchy of buffering in the medium density that would transition into low density. Staff feels the roadway could act as the transition point. Commissioner Schindler said that he would like to see low density throughout and is not in favor of medium or high density. It is surrounded by low density which allows you to do multi-family with CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2019 Page 2 of 4 some townhomes. He thought there is enough product available in low density and this entire area is basically low density. He believes they are taking away a lot of open space and if any of this re- designation is denied, it puts the property owner in a place where they really do not have any usable use of the property. He stated it is unfortunate that the situation is what it is for everybody involved and feels it is not appropriate to go any higher than low density in this particular situation. Commissioner Burke asked for clarification that based on the site between the pipeline and wetlands that the land left would be 8 acres. Mr. Lovelace said they could be down to about 8 acres of property and that is an estimate. That would occur at the time the development would be submitted for review. Commissioner Burke referred to the mature trees within those 8 acres that could influence and would be impacted. If this was to move forward any plans would have to come before the Planning Commission as far as placement and materials. Mr. Lovelace said if this was to move forward, any re-designation of the property, the next step would be the subdivision of the property. If it was a single-family development, that limits some of the requirements as far as materials, landscaping and things related to a single-family development. Once you get into a multi-family development there are more restrictions in the ordinance related to exterior finish materials and landscaping on the site. Single-family is less restrictive with materials whereas, with a planned development, the City has the ability for some negotiating as far as what the exterior materials may be. Commissioner Diekmann asked with the medium density (6-12 units/acre) if that also included the wetlands, pipeline and any roads. Mr. Lovelace answered yes, for the Comp Plan designation, but once you get into the zoning issue then you factor out some of the natural features like the wetlands. Commissioner Diekmann said that even at medium density you would struggle to get 12 units per acre given all the obstructions on the property. Mr. Lovelace agreed that the site is challenging. Commissioner Scanlan inquired as to why only the .5 acre was requested to become low density. Mr. Lovelace said there is a natural progressions next to the other low density area. Commissioner Scanlan commented he would like to see low density mix more than medium density. Commissioner Kurtz asked how many houses would fit on this land if the 8 acres were low density. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2019 Page 3 of 4 City Engineer Brandon Anderson responded if there would be ¼-acre lots for low density, there could be 32 houses. Mr. Lovelace added that is not a definitive number because that could change. If a development was made with straight single-family is would need to be served with public roadways. Multi- family developments can be served with private streets and the design of those streets can be much different with the roadway widths and right-of-way. Chair Melander commented that the Commission does not talk about this application outside of this meeting. City Council makes the final decision. He said it is unusual to get an application with this in mind. When they get an application it usually includes drawings and plans. The application does not include what would be developed on this property. He referred to a public comment in the staff report and said they are prohibited by law to consider economic impacts and that planning is land use determination. With land use it has to fit. This land is bisected by a pipeline and wetlands and then you add setbacks. He sees that the property it is surrounded by low density. He said anything beyond single-family is going to be a problem. Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the Watrud family, believes the analysis was fair and provided a good insight into the potential for the use of this property. They disagree with some of the comments because the landowner gets a say in this too. He understands from the Commission’s comments that the Commission believes low density is right for this site and he offered the perspective that this may be the only one large undeveloped track on this half of the city north of County Road 42. This is a Comprehensive Plan not a subdivision application. To him the Comp Plan is supposed to demonstrate some vision. He was not suggesting that low density is not a vision. It is obviously reflected in other parcels around the property but it seems to him that if that is what the Commission is advocating, and he realizes it is a recommendation, he feels it is a missed opportunity. Their proposal may not be perfect but thinks it is a proposal that provides the most flexibility to the city, to a future developer, should there be one, and to the applicant, to try to put something on the property that will work and be attractive and will be desirable to the community. He added, because at the end of day, it does not matter what we ask for, if it cannot be sold. He said staff has done a great job of acknowledging how this property is going to be chopped up by other restrictions that already exist. So the notion that this is just going to be pancaked with housing is just not even close to real. If the planning designation is limited to low density, it is going to be a very lot of housing. That would be a missed opportunity for this reason, that some of your family or kids will want to live in Apple Valley, go to ISD 196, retire in Apple Valley near churches or their grandkids. A lot of those people do not want to buy single-family homes. They want to buy either an attractive, modern townhome if they can and for them it is a good opportunity. It is sitting on 140th Street and Garden View Avenue and they think high density is appropriate for the corner for this reason. It is close to Valley Foods in Burnsville and close to the high school. There is a bus that stops there and picks up people, maybe randomly, but still picks them up. By putting too low of designation on the property, you are just going to miss an opportunity to do something creative, attractive and successful. Mr. Coyle urged the Commission to adopt the proposal they had submitted. They think it is a good proposal. The application for subdivision is subject to the Planning Commission’s controls. If the CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 2019 Page 4 of 4 use that comes in is too dense, or just does not seem to fit, the Commission still has the control to say “no thanks”. They will figure out something else. But if only low density is allowed, they are left with almost no options in terms of what can be done. Then the landowner has to decide whether or not the existing designation, which really only leaves him a church as a private use of the property, then we are back to that. To them that would be a horrible outcome because they think that would not be an appropriate use of the property but it would be allowed as a permitted use. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending approval of the re-designation of Outlot B, Cobblestones I from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential). Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending approval of the re-designation of Outlots A and C, and the north .25 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I and the north 13.5 acres of a 14.5-acre parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential). Ayes - 2 - Nays - 5. (Alwin, Kurtz, Melander, Scanlan, and Schindler) MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending approval of the re-designation of south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential). Ayes - 0 - Nays - 7. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending approval of the re-designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) due to the following findings: 1. The topography, presence of natural features, its proximity to the adjacent collector roadways and land uses. Ayes - 2 - Nays - 5. (Alwin, Kurtz, Melander, Scanlan, and Schindler) I T E M: 5.A. P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E:A ugust 7, 2019 S E C T I O N:L and Use / Action I tems Description: A pple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments - P C19-09-P S taff Contact: Thomas L ovelace, City Planner Department / Division: Community Development Department Applicant: J oel Watrud P roject Number: P C19-09-P Applicant Date: 5/22/2019 60 Days: 7/20/2019 120 Days: 9/18/2019 AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: If the Planning C ommission concurs staff is recommending the following actions: 1. Recommend the re-designation of Outlot B, C obblestones I from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential). 2. Recommend the re-designation of Outlots A and C , and the north .25 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I and the north 13.5 acres of a 14.5-acre parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential). 3. Recommend denial of the re-designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, C obblestones I, the south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential) due to the following findings: 1. Services such as shopping, transit, daycare, recreation, and other similar uses are not in close proximity to the site. 2. T he site is not located where services are currently available and convenient or are expected to be in the future. 3. T he site lacks the critical link of potential people to jobs and services. 4. T he site is not located on a high-volume arterial corridor, such a C S A H 42 and Cedar Avenue (C S A H 23) that would provide access to retail, services and transit. 4. Recommend the re-designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "P R" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) due to the following findings: 1. T he topography, presence of natural features, its proximity to the adjacent collector roadways and land uses. S UM M ARY: Mr. J oel Watrud, the owner of the Apple Valley Golf C ourse located at 8661 140th Street West, is requesting the following amendments to the C ity's C omprehensive Land Use Map: 1. Re-designate .5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential) 2. Re-designate 14.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) 3. Re-designate 8 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential) T he 23-acre golf course property is located at the northwest corner of 140th Street West and Garden View D rive. Adjacent uses include single-family residential to the north, single- family, two-family and multi-family residential to the west and south, and multi-family to the east. A public hearing for the C omprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment requests was held on J une 19, 2019. T he hearing was opened, comments taken, and the hearing was closed. T he following is a synopsis of the comments received at the public hearing, followed by any staff comments as appropriate. Concerns were raised that the proposed Comprehensiv e P lan Land Use Map amendments were in conflict with the City’s mission statement to promote the health and well-being of its citizens and all that v isit the city. Staff Response – The City’s mission statement is the f ollowing: The C ity of Apple Valley is pledged to promote and enhance the health, saf ety and general well-being of its citizens and all who visit the city. In achieving this goal, the City will: • Provide a full range of municipal services; • Encourage active participation; • Promote quality development; • Provide a balance of residential, commercial, and public uses; • Promote employment opportunities within the community; • Experiment with new ideas in the delivery of public services; and • Transmit to future citizens a better and more beautif ul community. The C ity utilizes many available tools to ensure the ongoing health, saf ety and general welfare of its residents and guests. Those tools include the comprehensive plan, as well as the subdivision control, natural resources management and zoning chapters of the city’s code of ordinances. All of these tools will be used when considering f uture development on the subject property. Comments were receiv ed about the impact this request would hav e on the schools. Staff Response – The IS D 196 demographer estimates that the average student population is .58 students per single-f amily unit, .34 students per townhome unit and .32 students per apartment unit dwelling unit. These are estimates that the school district would use f or their planning purposes, and these numbers may vary when other f actors are taken into consideration. Elementary students would attend Westview Elementary, middle school students would attend Falcon Ridge Middle School, and high school students would attend Apple Valley Senior High School. School of f icials inf ormed staf f that all three schools would be able to accommodate the increase in student population generated by development on the property. The school district was provided notice of the proposed amendments f or review and comment. The district commented that the proposed amendments were not anticipated to impact the district's operations. Concerns were raised regarding the impact on real estate v alues of adjacent properties. Staff Response – Because many dif f erent f actors contribute to the value of a home, it is not possible to attribute impacts of property value on a single adjacent land use. Property values are impacted by overall City development patterns and not one specific land use. The Urban Land Institute’s “Higher-Density Development Myth and Fact” and “The C ase f or Multifamily Housing” documents cite academic studies that show that multi-family developments do not negatively impact existing adjacent single-family home values. In some studies, they have indicated that multi-f amily residential adjacent to single-family homes can have a positive impact on property values. Possible reasons f or positive impact are the f ollowing: Multi-family developments can make an area more attractive than nearby communities with f ewer housing choices. They increase the pool of potential f uture homebuyers. Professional companies who are hired by a homeowners association or a apartment management company usually ensure the ongoing maintenance of multi-family properties. Any f uture building construction on the golf course property will be in compliance with the City’s exterior design requirements, zoning and subdivision codes, and State Building C ode requirements. Concerns were raised about the increase in traffic generated by future residential dev elopment on the golf course property and the impact to the existing road system. Staff Response – See the attached memo f rom the C ity Engineer. Concerns were raised about the potential loss of mature trees on the site with a dev elopment project. Staff Response – Any development on this property will require the submittal of a tree inventory that will identif y the size, species, condition, and location of each signif icant tree. A significant tree is def ined as any healthy deciduous tree measuring eight inches or greater in diameter, or any conif erous tree measuring six inches or greater in diameter, at four and one-half f eet above grade. As with any development, a developer will be required to identif y all the signif icant trees to be preserved as well as any that will be removed, or lost as a result of any land-disturbing activity. The C ity’s ordinance requires that 10% of the signif icant removed must be replaced with caliper inches within the development. Also, approved landscape plans shall be required f or any multi-f amily development on this site. These plans shall include size, location, quantity and species of all plant materials and method of maintenance. The minimum cost of the landscaping installed shall be 2½% of the estimated building(s) construction cost. Concerns were raised about loss of green space and the C ity should preserv e the open space with the purchase of the property for a public park. Staff Response – The C ity promotes diverse recreational opportunities, services, f acilities, and trails through the Parks and Recreation Department. There are currently 54 public parks of various types distributed throughout the city. These include neighborhood parks, community parks and special use parks. The neighborhood park serve residents with a half -mile radius and off ers a variety of services f rom basic recreation, such as a playground, small playfield, and a picnic shelter. Sunset and Wildwood parks are such parks that are located within a ½-mile of the golf course neighborhood. The area is also located near two community parks, which are designed to serve a larger population. These parks provide intensive activity such as ballf ields, several picnic shelters, one or two playground areas, and open space areas. Examples of this type of park is Hayes Park, a 25-acre park, located within a mile of the subject property and Alimagnet Park, an 85-acre park that has areas f or both passive and active recreation. Access to this park is within a ½-mile of the golf course property. Like all development projects in the city, the development of this property will require park dedication. The C ity will have a choice of taking the dedication in land, cash-in-lieu of land or a combination thereof. This will be determined at the time of approval of the subdivision of the property. Concerns were receiv ed about adding more multi-family residential units when there are existing units that are unoccupied in the city. Staff Response - On June 14, 2019, staf f attended the Minnesota Real Estate J ournal State of the Residential Market Conf erence. Marquette Advisors provided a comprehensive review of multi-f amily units throughout the metro, and community specif ic information. The f ollowing points illustrate the main trends in the market: The multi-f amily market has increasingly low vacancies, between zero and 2 percent f or most units, with high demand for additional units. Rents in the suburbs have risen signif icantly, particularly in the suburbs. Rents metro wide increased by 6.7% from the f irst quarter in 2018 to f irst quarter in 2019. This type of rate increase, despite lower job growth numbers, means the market is still in need of additional multi-family units. A survey of 1,977 multi-f amily dwelling units in the city was completed in early 2019. The survey reviewed the average rents and vacancy rates f or all types of units in the city. The vacancy rates f or the f irst quarter of 2019 was 1.5%. A comment was receiv ed referencing a Supreme Court decision of the City of Mendota Heights v s Mendota Golf L L C regarding the conflict between the City of Mendota Heights Comprehensiv e Guide P lan designating 18 acres as “Golf Course” (G C), while the city’s zoning ordinance designated the property as “Residential” (R-1 one family residential). Staff Response – See the attached memo to C ommunity Development Director Bruce N ordquist f rom City Attorney Michael Dougherty. B AC K G RO UND: Comprehensiv e P lan: T he property is currently designated "P R" (Private Recreation). T he 2030 Plan created this designation of “Private Recreation” to recognize the current use of the subject property as a privately owned public golf course. T his is the only property in the city that has this designation. T he property has the same designation in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It was recognized in 2009 and again in 2018, that the Apple Valley Golf C ourse may face challenges in the future, primarily financial, similar to the challenges faced by other small golf courses in the Metropolitan Area. It was understood during the preparation of the 2030 and 2040 Plans, that these challenges might cause the property owner to seek a change in land use. Any change in land use must be carefully considered for the ability of the property to support the proposed use, the fit with the surrounding area and the overall plans for Apple Valley. T he current Institutional zoning designation best reflects the present use and numerous alternative uses may be allowed in the future. T he golf course is surrounded by residential uses that might also be evaluated for comparison as to their density and value if a change is requested. Commercial uses are not encouraged unless those businesses have a residential character and are integrated in a mixed-use urban design. As stated previously, the applicant is requesting C omprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments that would re-designate .5 acres from "P R" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential), 14.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) and 8 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Res idential). The remaining text in this section are excerpts from the City’s draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which will be applicable as this request moves through the review process. T he “LD” (Low D ensity Residential) designation consists of areas in the city with primarily single-family, detached dwellings. T his is the single largest land use in Apple Valley. A large base of owner-occupied homes promotes neighborhood stability by reducing resident turnover and encouraging homeowner investment in private property. Limiting conflicts with high- intensity uses ensures that property values are protected over time. Protected property values help maintain stable neighborhoods and directly benefit local citizens through contributions to the municipal tax base. Low-density neighborhoods benefit from a variety of services and institutions, including parks, playgrounds, schools, religious institutions, and appropriate-scale commercial. A system of safe and well-designed sidewalks and trails is essential to connect with schools, parks, downtown, and other destinations in the community. A variety of housing types may be built in Low Density Residential areas including single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, twin homes, townhomes, and other types of attached housing at densities of 2-6 units per acre. Outlot A, Cobblestones I addition is a .5-acre outlot that is currently used as a tee box for hole #2. T he characteristics associated with this property are consistent with the "LD" designation. T he “MD” (Medium Density Residential) designation provides for single-family living options which is becoming an increasingly attractive option for aging baby boomers seeking a transition to a living environment that offers independence without the maintenance requirements and a property tax bill associated with conventional single-family detached housing. In addition, Medium Density Residential typically provides housing at a lower price point than low density residential and helps enable the City to meet its share of regional affordable housing requirements. "MD" land uses include townhomes, other attached single- family dwellings, and low-rise apartments and condominiums at densities that range from 6- 12 units per acre. T his designation fits with the "M-4", "M-5", "M-6", and "PD" zoning districts. T he site is relatively level with the exception of a couple of small elevation changes near the second and ninth greens, and along the north and eastern edges of the property. T he site abuts single-family residential to the north and west, and two community collector streets to the south and east. T hree wetlands are located on the site as well mature vegetation. T hese features were established as part of the development of the golf course. Any development on the site would need adhere regulations related wetland management and tree removal and replacement. T he “HD” (High Density Residential) designation are areas for attached multiple-family structures (apartments and condominiums) at densities greater than 12 units per acre. High Density Residential neighborhoods benefit from proximity to services such as shopping, transit, daycare, recreation, and other similar uses. Retail shopping centers and service providers likewise benefit from a dense local customer base. Providing these uses near to high-density residential leads to mutual efficiencies and lessens dependence on private v e hi c l e s . High-density residential developments should be located where services are currently available and convenient or are expected to be in the future. Developments with densities of up to 40 units per acre are allowed in the areas within and adjacent to the downtown if certain performance standards in the zoning code are met. T his would not be applicable to with this property T he C ity benefits from high-density development by capitalizing on efficiencies in the provision of infrastructure, services, and attached-building construction, and the increased concentration of taxpayers per unit area. Linking people to jobs and services is critical. High- density developments can be leveraged for economic development purposes and suburban transit-oriented development. As such, they are frequently located on high-volume arterial corridors with access to retail and services. O ften, high-density residential is considered as a “use” buffer between lower-density residential and higher-intensity commercial or industrial u s e s . T his goal is rational in theory, but care should be taken to ensure that undesirable impacts are not inequitably off-loaded onto a greater number of residents. Buffer treatments, including landscaping and building/site orientation, can minimize the impacts of light, noise, and traffic on high-density areas. T he strategic location of a row of garages, for example, can shield apartments from the noise and activity of a nearby highway. High D ensity Residential areas include multiple-family structures (apartments and condominiums) at densities greater than 12 units per acre to the extent allowed by the zoning ordinance. T he HD designation fits with "M-7", "M-8", and "P D" zoning districts. High Density Residential requires additional provision of parking, infiltration, and buffering from incompatible uses. Building setback, bulk requirements, lot-coverage requirements, and parking requirements are outlined in the zoning code. High-density residential should be considered on property located adjacent to or near arterial roads that can provide a buffer between lower density residential uses and commercial or industrial uses. T he site also will not provide that close proximity to the desired a link to jobs, retail and services. Although, the site abuts two major collector roads, the desire is to have the high-density residential located closer to arterial roads, such as C S A H 23 and 42, which provides more transportation opportunities via the City's transit services and better pedestrian access to goods and services in the community. Zoning: T he zoning ordinance is used to create zoning districts, identify uses that are allowed in each district. It also identifies area standards and performance standards that regulate such things as the minimum lot area, size and location of a building or structure, building setbacks from property lines, building height, lot coverage, maximum impervious surface within a particular zoning district. T he property is currently zoned “P” (Institutional). Institutional districts are area designed to serve the public and quasi-public uses. Permitted uses include schools, public libraries and art galleries, parks and playgrounds, recreational facilities or athletic fields, religious facilities, cemeteries, government facilities, non-profit clubs and lodges, public hospitals and acre facilities, and golf courses. Any re-designation of the property will require a change in its current zoning. T he majority of the property in the city currently designated “LD” (Low Density Residential) are zoned “R-1”, “R-2”, “R-3” or “R-C L”, which area districts that permit detached single- family dwellings. T his designation also allows for “R-5” (Two-Family Residential) and “M- 1”, “M-2”, and “M-3” (Multi-Family Residential), and “P D” (Planned Development) zoning districts. Property designated “MD” (Medium Density Residential) include townhomes, other attached single-family dwellings, and low-rise apartments and condominiums at densities that range from 6-12 units per acre. T his designation fits with the “M-4”, “M-5”, “M-6”, and “PD” zoning districts. Finally, “HD” (High Density Residential) designated areas include multiple-family structures (apartments and condominiums) at densities greater than 12 units per acre to the extent allowed by the zoning ordinance. T he “M-7”, “M-8”, and “PD” zoning districts are typically located in the “HD” designated areas. P reliminary P lat: Approximately 14 acres of the subject property is unplatted with the remaining nine acres platted as outlots. Any development of the property will require the subdivision of the property. Some of the required elements of a subdivision include the dedication of right-of-way, public drainage (including storm water ponding) and utility easements, and park dedication in the form of land and/or cash-in-lieu of land dedication. Av ailability of Municipal Utilities: Public utilities are available and would be extended into the site to serve any development. Storm water management will be an important issue with any development of the property. Onsite management and discharge will be essential to any future development of the property. A wetland delineation report has been prepared for this site. T hree wetlands have been identified and delineated. Any development will be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local wetland regulations. It should be also noted that an 80-foot wide pipeline easement bisects the property. T he location of this utility will impact any development as it is generally understood that uses over a pipeline easement are restrictive and no buildings or landscaping shall be placed within an easement of this type. T he City Engineer has provided additional information regarding public utilities and wetlands in his attached memo. Street Classifications: T he site abuts Garden View Drive on the east, 140th Street West on the west and Hollins C ourt on the north. Garden View Drive and 140th Street West are major collectors, which are designed to collect traffic from neighborhoods and employment centers and distribute it to the city arterial system. Hollins C ourt is a local street, whose primary use is to serve local transportation needs such as gaining access to the property bordering it. Local streets will likely serve any on-site development. Improvements to the abutting collector roads will be evaluated as part of any development project on this property. T he C ity Engineer has done a preliminary analysis on traffic impacts related to future development of the subject property and his findings are included in the attached memo. P ublic Hearing Comments: T he Planning C ommission held a public hearing on J une 19, 2019. T he hearing was opened, comments received and the hearing was closed. A synopsis of the comments and staff's responses to those comments are contained in the Summary section of this report. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S : Background Material Background Material Background Material Correspondence L ocation Map Comp Plan Map Comp Plan Map Background Material Background Material CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 19, 2019 Excerpt from the June 19, 2019 meeting: 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Apple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments – PC19-09-P Chair Melander addressed the audience of the process of the public hearing and the role of the Planning Commission. He opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated Mr. Joel Watrud, the owner of the Apple Valley Golf Course located at 8661 140th Street West, is requesting the following amendments to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Map: 1. Re-designate .5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential) 2. Re-designate 14.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) 3. Re-designate 8 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential) The 23-acre golf course property is located at the northwest corner of 140th Street West and Garden View Drive. Adjacent uses include single-family residential to the north, single-family, two- family and multi-family residential to the west and south, and multi-family to the east. The property is currently designated "PR" (Private Recreation). The 2030 Plan created this designation of "Private Recreation" to recognize the current use of the subject property as a privately owned public golf course. This is the only property in the city that has this designation. The property is currently zoned "P" (Institutional). Institutional districts are areas designed to serve the public and quasi-public uses. Permitted uses include schools, public libraries and art galleries, parks and playgrounds, recreational facilities or athletic fields, religious facilities, cemeteries, government facilities, non-profit clubs and lodges, public hospitals and acre facilities, and golf courses. Any re-designation of the property will require a change in the current zoning. He said a wetland delineation report has been prepared for this site. Three wetlands have been identified and delineated. Any development will be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local wetland regulations. It is also noted that an 80-foot wide pipeline easement bisects the property. The location of this utility will impact any development as it is generally understood that uses over a pipeline easement are restrictive and no buildings or landscaping shall be placed within an easement of this type. Chair Melander asked what the height limit would be for an M-8 zoning that is not in the downtown area. Mr. Lovelace replied it would still be three stories. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Chair Melander inquired about the pipeline running through the site. Mr. Lovelace answered there is an 80-foot wide easement which uses 2½ acres while the wetlands uses 1½ acres out of the 23 acres total. Commissioner Alwin asked for clarification that this hearing was only about the zoning change. Mr. Lovelace clarified that tonight is not a rezoning but only a Comprehensive Plan re-designation. There is no application for rezoning nor development plan that has been brought forward by the applicant. Their only request is a re-designation of the property. Chair Melander asked for confirmation that the application was made by the owner of the property. Mr. Lovelace answered yes, by Joel Watrud. Commissioner Scanlan asked about the three designations and that those designations may vary as to what probably comes forward. He asked for Mr. Lovelace to talk about high density and the need for more apartments in Apple Valley. Mr. Lovelace said that could be provided. There is a need for more apartments that is metro wide and there are articles in the paper all the time. Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the Watrud family, reported that golf courses are struggling around the country. He said the owner tried years ago to sell but decided to keep the enterprise going for another 10 years. He added a large open space will attract users and the comp plan process is a forecast. They proposed medium density and high density because there is a high demand for housing and a growing demand for senior housing that is affordable. This land will be a challenge with the pipeline going through it and the wetlands need to go through the regulatory process. He understands the anxiety that goes with it and that Mr. Watrud is a landowner and taxpayer and he has rights too. Randy Neubauer, 13609 Hollins Ct, referenced the City’s mission statement to pledge and promote the health and well-being of its citizens and all who visit the City. He talked about goals and quality development. He said this zoning request is in conflict with the City’s mission statement and goals. He said in regards to safety, 140th Street is already a very busy street. He felt that high density with 12 units per acre should be located where services are like private shopping and that the bus route has limited services. Mike Scherer, 8473 – 142nd Street Ct., said there is a business owner who has run an immaculate business over the years and he thinks the City should buy the golf course and keep it as a golf course. He understands there is a need for senior citizen housing and apartment complexes. He said if the need is so great for housing, why does the City not use its own land of 190 acres at Valleywood Golf Course and put that into housing which has extremely better road access rather than cram this proposal into a tiny 23-acre site. If the need is so great, why is the City not using its CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2019 Page 3 of 5 own land, bulldozing that and putting in condominiums and apartment complexes for seniors. He said in 2011 the City spent $3 million for a brand new club house at Valleywood and if they can spend $3 million on a club house they can certainly buy this golf course and help out a land owner who has been an excellent community member, and help all these people who are here tonight. Jon Kotek, 13583 Hollins Ct, said he drove past an Eagan golf course that was rezoned and it turned into a development and it pained him on how many trees were cut and cleared out of there for that development and considering Apple Valley’s sign has a tree on it he would think we would want to keep the trees a little bit more around here. He said the amount of the aged oaks on this site (Apple Valley Golf Course) it would just kill him to see that kind of stuff get destroyed. Kathy Lundin, 13531 Hollins Ct, commented that this is a peaceful place and she would be devastated by a three-story apartment and stacked townhomes and she thinks it is an extremely poor use of the land. She referenced the Comp Plan Land Use section: “The City seeks to maintain the integrity of existing neighborhoods”. She said the Comp Plan states that: “The land must be compatible with the adjacent properties.” She did not think this would be in scale with the single- family homes that are all around the golf course now. She said this rezoning is in total disagreement with the Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan and if the Planning Commission agrees with the rezoning then the Commission is completely ignoring the City’s Comprehensive Plan. She does not think the citizens of Apple Valley will have much respect for city government that does not follow the guidelines that the City made up themselves. She said the Comp Plan refers to high density areas having other Apple Valley services available. She added that all other Apple Valley apartments are in high density areas not in residential areas. She said that when the Commission makes their decision they should think of the people. She said property values will suffer, traffic and noise will be unbearable and beautiful green space filled with trees and ponds will disappear. This is not the right location for apartments. Michelle Gustafson, 8415 – 141st Ct. W, said this zoning plan will have a detrimental impact on the schools directly surrounding this neighborhood. She believes high density would have an impact on our neighborhood schools. Vickie Loher-Johnson, 8907 – 138th Street Ct, said the zoning of this property is for recreational use and the owner purchased this land knowing that zoning classification and what the owner did not purchase and has no right to was a lucrative high density residential development opportunity. It is not an issue of anxiety of this neighborhood about change. It is an issue with Apple Valley keeping the promise it made when zoning this site for recreational use and zoning the surrounding property for single-family low density residential use. She expressed concern for the busy traffic on 140th Street and that Gardenview goes downhill. She understands the demand for housing in Apple Valley and that other areas are available and more appropriate. Derek Ingvalson, 13931 Holyoke Path, expressed concern for the loss of green space and that children can be impacted from this loss because there are significant health benefits to having green space. He had a concern for the water quality in Alimagnet Lake and the impervious surfaces. He said there are different ways to preserve this green space if the City of Apple Valley would purchase CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2019 Page 4 of 5 this land and turn it into parks. He referenced the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment and had an example of the application. Brad Blackett, 457 Relection Road, referenced the zoning chapter 155.347 about natural features and that ponding will not have an adverse effect on the site. He said the golf course has natural vegetation. He said putting in surface parking, etc. will have an impact and that adding more runoff will add more problems. He said infiltration of rain water into a site has a calculation. More frequency of heavy rains causes water flushing straight through into the lake. He is looking to the Planning Commission and staff for what impact impervious surface has on Alimagnet Lake and how to accommodate the runoff water during the changing climate, additional rainfalls and the five- year floods. Mike Lotzer, 13826 Holyoke Lane, said if he owned the land he would be tempted to sell the land for residential property because it would be a good return on investment on the land he worked on for many years. He does not blame the owner for doing what he is doing. He does not blame any of the people in attendance for voicing concerns. He said it is hard to get out onto 140th Street from the neighborhood across from the golf course. He added this is a unique space and that the business owner is within his rights to do what he is doing but he would like to keep this site special because urban sprawl is ugly and he would probably move. Patrick Luke, 13647 Holyoke Lane, stated that if an owner wants to sell his land he has a right. He said he has water already and why alter to get more. His sub-pump runs all the time. Jennifer Deviley, 14105 Gardenview Ct, said there are water issues. She loves her community and Apple Valley and does not think the City needs that apartment building. She has a passion about keeping the green space. If the apartment building comes in she would move. Mary Mittelstaedt, 7797 Whitney Dr, said there are apartments across from where she lives and those apartments did not all get filled yet. She thinks the City should buy the golf course land from the property owner and build a community park on the west side of town and make a wildlife area to bring back the bees. Ryan Tauer, 13576 Hollins Ct, referenced a Supreme Court decision of Mendota Heights vs Mendota Golf LLC from January 2006 which had comp plan concerns in that city where Mendota Heights did not have a clear view to amend its comprehensive plan. He believes in keeping the green space. Betty Salisbury, 8793 – 135th Street W, feels the City is losing green space. She has attended Music in the Park at Kelley Park and had always enjoyed it there and does not enjoy the high density development at Kelley Park and believes it is getting to be a high density ghetto in Apple Valley. She said Kelley Park is not Kelley Park anymore. She would like this spot owned by the City and remain as green space. Kristin Fyanzoni, 8624 – 144th Street W, referenced Minnesota Statute that there is no justified basis in rezoning this land from the City’s current Comprehensive Plan. Apple Valley is in the CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 2019 Page 5 of 5 same status it has been in for years. The neighborhood was well established for years. She said this change does not promote health and welfare. These families cannot afford $400,000 homes. She thinks the land should be re-purposed for a Kelley Park on this side of Apple Valley. Kathy Osgood 15601 Foliage Avenue, agreed with other people to make this land a Kelley Park West and asked if we could just not recreate and keep it a beautiful space. Tim Thurnbald, 8435 – 135th Street W, said it is very important to maintain green space. Wetland and buffer zones cannot have housing on them so use those sections as parklands. At least have the City consider that idea. People value green space and feel betrayed when green spaces lost out. Ground water could be left natural. He believes in preserving the environment for birds and other animals in the area. You never see a natural area turn back later. This is the one and only opportunity to make the right decision and keep the green space. Marilyn Gackenheimer, 13655 Hershey Ct, said she has had many friends comment to her how beautiful this city is. She would hate to see the green space go because once it is gone, we do not get it back. She said we do not need a concrete jungle in this area and the high traffic and feels the high pack is not for her neighborhood. Stacey Klein, 8655 – 143rd Street Ct, said she wanted to be a voice for schools on the west side. She said we need things to entice young families to move to the west side of Apple Valley. She said Apple Valley High School is at its lowest enrollment in history since the school opened. It’s a good school but we do not have a shiny new development going up over here like they do on the east side that is filling up Rosemount and Eastview. She believes a green space is going to entice younger families to move here, like if there is a park there or a section of it was a dog park to let our dogs run. Mary Berg, 13362 Hughes Ct, quoted an artist – Big Yellow Taxi – song by Counting Crows. “No, no no. Don’t it always seem to go. That you don’t know what you got till it gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”. John Boesen, 4950 Upper 148th Ct, said he has been listening to all the reasons why we should not make this other than low density housing. He said we have heard about green space, a pipeline running through it, how to do density housing and water runoff. He said there is no reason why this should be changed to a high density area other than money. He said if this is not about money there is no reason to put this into anything other than low density and this would give the land owner the ability to at least change his property, maybe a profit or maybe a break even. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m.              !"#  $$% & #' ()(!#(*$!+#,   *-*'#. ..      +(* # (, '&  !    (**'&,($*'$ !'*'    (/ '!-    ..    011  211  131  !"#$%&$ $                               &''#(     ! "    #$$%%&'(  )     * + , -  % ./   0   1.1 2   .   3  1+412+4  .  3 5 ./  %&0 1.12  .   31412 4  .  3 6 ./   #   1.1 2   .   3  174127  4  .  3  856/        %&'(  " ! 4  9     /      /   /     /        /        )*+#"&    8     1.12  .   38 5'6'       :  .   ;  <   9         8               8               5'&'      < 5''=    5'%#   !  "                                 5'6' 5'&'       >                            !  8      <                    8                          )                    ?/              )   + ,    /  0 1.12  .   31+412+ 4 .  3%&0 1.12  .   31412 4  .  3  #   1.1 2   .   3  1741 27  4  .  3                              !  8:+4;2+4 .  3                /    8         !   /                 +        /                               <       ?   +/                       >              /       /   >           >                +4 .         /     ?         5/$    8 :4; 2  4  .  3         /                         >                        )    ?         /         4 .                          ) 141       /      /            $/ %5  8      1/&11/011/$1 141<      8:74;27  4  .  3            /    2      3     %5  7  4  .         ?                          .          >             /                      7 /                       ?    4    &'           9         <   8         8       /       <                 /                ?    + >  9       7 /                /     )    /          /        :;   /     /      8            >       )  /      @           A        <        /   8        ?                   7  4  .          /     2      3     %5  ?  <      8 74         1/B1 1/#1  141<     7  4 .  )        >             @    >  > )  /   )    > )    <    8   <:;2   3           )  /              >                          /                 /    )      <   8 9     :+4;2+4 .  3 < :./%; :./5; :./6;  :./+;                /    8      :./0;28/C  .  3 :/%;:/ 5;  :/6; 2  /C   .  3  :4; 2  4 3 <        :4;2 4 .  3       /     /             $/%5  8      :/&;:/0;:/$; :4; <     C  :74;27 4 .  3         /    2      3         %5       ?  <    8:/B;:/#; :4;<        :74;          ?   %&               )      ()            //         >     A / /                        ?     (                                            8                 9                   #'/      8                                            8   " ! 4   %&'(  7 " ! 4   %&'(   9                          7                         +     >    /                      9                                                     )                        )&+$ !'   ,'$ 4 5"!(- '!  (!!#$(- ( '( $ (*$   $ (*$   $ 4 5"!(- '!  4 5"!(- '!  APPLE VALLEY GOLF COURSE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS Property Location: 8661 140th Street West Legal Description: Comprehensive Plan Designation “PR” (Private Recreation) Zoning Classification “P” (Institutional) Existing Platting 14 acres are unplatted with the remainder platted as outlots Current Land Use Golf Course Size: 23 acres Topography: Varying, typical of a golf course Existing Vegetation Grasses and vegetation associated with a golf course Other Significant Natural Features Presence of wetlands Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Single-Family Residential Dwellings Comprehensive Plan “LD” (Low Density Residential) Zoning/Land Use “R-3” (Single Family Residential) SOUTH Single and Two-Family Residential and Townhome Dwellings Comprehensive Plan “LD” (Low Density Residential) Zoning/Land Use “R-3” (Single Family Residential), “R-5” (Two Family Residential), and “M-3C” (Multiple Family Residential) EAST Wildwood Townhomes and Private Open Space Comprehensive Plan “LD” (Low Density Residential) Zoning/Land Use “M-3C” (Medium Density Residential) and “P” (Institutional) WEST Single Family Residential Dwellings Comprehensive Plan “LD” (Low Density Residential) Zoning/Land Use “R-3” (Single Family Residential) 14985 Glazier Avenue, Suite 525 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 953-8820 Direct (962) 432-3136 Office (952) 432-3780 Fax Mdougherty@dmshb.com Email MEMORANDUM To: Bruce Nordquist, Community Development Director From: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney Date: June 26, 2019 Re: Amendment to Comprehensive Guide Plan Application of Apple Valley East Golf Course ______________________________________________________________________________ At the June 19, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, a resident spoke of a Minnesota Supreme Court case: Mendota Golf, LLP vs. City of Mendota Heights.1 A member of the City Council has asked that we opine as to the relevance of Mendota Golf in relation to the application before the Planning Commission. In doing so, we want to note that the facts and circumstances surrounding Mendota Golf are unique. The substantive value of the Court’s decision can be more fully understood in the decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Wensmann Realty Inc. v. City of Eagan 2 (which will be discussed later in the memo). MENDOTA GOLF DECISION The genesis of the conflict found in Mendota Golf stemmed from the City of Mendota Heights Comprehensive Guide Plan designating 18 acres as “Golf Course” (GC), while the city’s zoning ordinance designated the property as “Residential” (R-1 one family residential). In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature adopted a statute directing cities to reconcile conflicts between comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances by requiring zoning ordinances to be brought into conformance with the comprehensive plan.3 In 2003, the owner submitted an application to change the comprehensive plan designation of the property from golf course to low density residential. The City Council unanimously denied the application. The property owner brought suit asking the Court to issue a writ to require the city to amend the comprehensive plan, arguing that the city had a duty to amend the plan and that the city acted arbitrarily by failing to adopt a rational justification for denying the amendment. The Supreme Court held that the city did not have a duty to amend the comprehensive plan to correlate with the zoning. Rather, it held that the city’s duty was to “reconcile” the conflict between the comprehensive guide plan and the zoning regulations, which could be accomplished by amending the zoning regulations. With respect to whether the city acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the Supreme Court found that the city properly considered and articulated a legitimate interest in protecting open and recreational space, as well as reaffirming the historical use of the property. The matter was sent back to district court to issue a writ directing the city to reconcile the conflict between its comprehensive guide plan and zoning regulations (which the city acknowledged it had to do.) One of the key outcomes of Mendota Golf stemmed from the dissent authored by Justice Barry Anderson. Justice Anderson concurred with the decision to reconcile the comprehensive guide plan and the zoning. However, he August 1, 2019 Page 2 of 2 www.dmshb.com also opened the issue as to whether the city’s rationale to retain open space and recreational opportunities constituted a taking which required the city to pay the owner just compensation. Justice Anderson noted that the owner had not asserted a taking, but invited an amendment to the pleadings to allow such to occur. Ultimately, the City acquired the property following the approval by its voters to spend 2.8 million dollars. WENSMANN REALTY The year after Mendota Golf, the Minnesota Supreme Court was faced with the issue raised by Justice Anderson in his dissent. In Wensmann Realty, the Court first considered whether the City of Eagan’s denial of a comprehensive plan amendment was supported by a rational basis. The city’s articulated reasons were: to preserve open and recreational space, to reaffirm the historical use of designations; to avoid the disruption of surrounding neighborhoods due to increased traffic; and to avoid burdens on the school systems. Based on its holding in Mendota Golf and a review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that Wensmann Realty had failed to establish that the City lacked a rational basis for its decision in denying the application. However, unlike the property owner in Mendota Golf, Wensmann Realty also included a claim that the city’s action constituted a taking. The bulk of the Wensmann Realty decision centered on whether the city’s denial resulted in a regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution. The Court noted that the citizens of Eagan clearly valued the open space that the golf course in question provided, but if the property owner is forced to leave the property undeveloped for the benefit of neighborhood land owners, without an opportunity to pursue a reasonable use of the property, the city is, in essence, asking the property owner to carry a burden that in all fairness should be borne by the entire community. Ultimately, the Court found that it could not determine from the record whether the city’s denial left the property owner with any reasonable use of the property. The Supreme Court then remanded the matter back to the district court for proceedings consistent with its opinion, thereby requiring a determination of whether there remained a reasonable use of the property or whether the city had effected a regulatory taking. Similar to the outcome in Mendota Golf, the City settled the lawsuit. APPLE VALLEY EAST GOLF COURSE The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Unlike the facts in Mendota Golf, there is no existing conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations with respect to the use of the property. Should the City amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property, the City is required to amend the zoning regulation within nine months, so as to eliminate any conflict with Comprehensive Plan.4 As in all of its land use decisions, the City must have a rational basis for its decision that is supported by the facts in the record. Should the City’s decision leave the landowner without a reasonable use of the property, the decision may result in a claim that a regulatory taking has occurred. 1 Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). 2 Wenzman Realty Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2007). 3 Minn. Stat. §473.858, Subd. 1 (1995). 4 Minn. Stat. §473.865, Subd. 3 (2019). CITY OF MEMO Public Works TO: Tom Lovelace, Planner FROM: Brandon S. Anderson, PE, City Engineer DATE: August 1, 2019 SUBJECT: Apple Valley East Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments Traffic 1. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates both Garden View and 140th as Major Collectors. The posted speed limit on 140th Street is 45 mph, while Garden View Drive is posted at 40 mph. a. The capacity of a 4-lane undivided urban roadway (140th Street) is 24,000 – 28,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on 140th Street are at 10,740 ADT with 2040 projected volumes to be 14,700 ADT. b. The capacity of a 2-lane undivided urban roadway (Garden View north of 140th) is 14,000 – 15,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on Garden View (north of 140th) are at 2,652 ADT with 2040 projected volumes to be 4,000 ADT. c. The capacity of a 2-lane undivided urban roadway (Garden View south of 140th) is 14,000 – 15,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on Garden View (south of 140th) are at 4,708 ADT with 2040 projected volumes to be 6,100 ADT. 2. See table below for the estimated roadway impacts from three different scenarios. The trips were generated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition daily estimates for low density, medium density, and high density residential developments. The three scenarios for which trip generation was completed include the proposed scenario (Table 1), the recommended scenario (Table 2), and the potential scenario (Table 3). The three scenarios include a different mix of densities. Table 1. Applicant Proposed Scenario Trip Generation with Full Build out of Site Type of Units Acres Units Per Acre Trips/Unit Total Trips Low Density 0.5 2 9.5 9.5 Medium Density 14.5 12 7.5 1305 High Density 8 24 5.5 1056 Total Trips 2371 Table 2. Staff Recommended Scenario Trip Generation with Full Build out of Site Type of Units Acres Units Per Acre Trips/Unit Total Trips Low Density 0.5 2 9.5 9.5 Medium Density 22.5 12 7.5 2025 High Density 0 24 5.5 0 Total Trips 2035 Table 3. Potential Net Acreage (total site less gas easement, wetlands and storm water) Scenario Trip Generation Type of Units Acres Units Per Acre Trips/Unit Total Trips Low Density 0.5 2 9.5 9.5 Medium Density 8 12 7.5 720 High Density 0 24 5.5 0 Total Trips 730 3. The trips were then distributed to the area roadways based on a directional distribution that was estimated based on existing volume patterns and engineering judgement. It was assumed that the proposed development would have one access point to 140th Street (outside of the single low density unit on Hollins Court). Impacts for each scenario were then developed based on the trip generation and distribution. The potential roadway impacts were then evaluated, included the amount of new trips expected on the roadway segments and a check of the capacity of those segments. The analysis was completed for the Applicant proposed scenario (Table 4), the staff recommended scenario (Table 5), and the potential scenario with the gas easement, wetlands, buffers, right of way and storm water land area deducted from total acreage (Table 6). Table 4. Applicant Proposed Scenario Roadway Impacts with Full Build out of Site Public Roadway Systems Impact Roadway Cross Section Ex. AAD T Estimat ed AADT Increase Propose d Future AADT Percent Change in AADT Roadw ay Capacit y* Volume to Capacity Ratio LOS Garden View Drive N of 140th Street 2 Lane Undivide d Urban 2650 360 3010 14% 10000 0.30 A 140th St S of McAndrews Road 4 Lane Undivide d Urban 10900 1425 12325 13% 28000 0.44 B 140th St W of Garden View Drive 4 Lane Undivide d Urban 10300 950 11250 9% 28000 0.40 B Hollins Court 2 Lane Residenti al* 100 10 110 10% 1000 0.11 A *Typical roadway capacity of residential roadways is estimated as 1000 trips per day. Other roadway capacities obtained from the City of Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 5. Staff Recommended Scenario Roadway Impacts with Full Build out of Site Public Roadway Systems Impact Roadway Cross Section Existin g AADT Estimat ed AADT Increase Propose d Future AADT Percent Change in AADT Roadw ay Capacit y* Volu me to Capac ity Ratio LOS Garden View Drive N of 140th Street 2 Lane Undivided Urban 2650 310 2960 12% 10000 0.30 A 140th St S of McAndrews Road 4 Lane Undivided Urban 10900 1225 12125 11% 28000 0.43 B 140th St W of Garden View Drive 4 Lane Undivided Urban 10300 815 11115 8% 28000 0.40 B Hollins Court 2 Lane Residential* 100 10 110 10% 1000 0.11 A *Typical roadway capacity of residential roadways is estimated as 1000 trips per day. Other roadway capacities obtained from the City of Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan Table 6. Potential Net Acreage (total site less gas easement, wetlands and storm water) Scenario Trip Generation Public Roadway Systems Impact Roadwa y Cross Section Ex. AA DT AADT Increa se Propose d Future AADT Percent Change in AADT Roadwa y Capacit y* V/C Ratio LOS Garden View Drive N of 140th Street 2 Lane Undivid ed Urban 265 0 110 2760 4% 10000 0.28 A 140th St S of McAndrews Road 4 Lane Undivid ed Urban 109 00 440 11340 4% 28000 0.41 B 140th St W of Garden View Drive 4 Lane Undivid ed Urban 103 00 295 10595 3% 28000 0.38 B Hollins Court 2 Lane Residen tial* 100 10 110 10% 1000 0.11 A *Typical roadway capacity of residential roadways is estimated as 1000 trips per day. Other roadway capacities obtained from the City of Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan 4. Public Roadway Systems Impact a. The daily traffic expected to be generated with the proposed change to land use is expected to be approximately 2,371 Total Trips assuming all 22.5 acres are developed. b. The daily traffic expected to be generated with the staff recommended change to land use is expected to be approximately 2,035 Total Trips assuming all 22.5 acres are developed. c. The daily traffic expected to be generated with the staff recommended change to land use is expected to be approximately 730 Total Trips assuming only 8.0 acres are available for housing after right of way, gas easement, wetlands, and storm water needs of the site. d. The roadways are expected to be able to accommodate the 3-14% (depending on specific land use scenario) increase in traffic. A separate operational and intersection analysis will need to be completed at the time of a land use application for review of access spacing needs and traffic mitigation. Sanitary Sewer 5. Public 8” Sanitary Sewer is available within the 140th Street ROW which drains to a Trunk Sanitary sewer within Garden View and ultimately discharges to an MCES meter connection at the Lakeville/Apple Valley border near Cedar Avenue and 160th Street. The available capacity in the trunk system varies from 40-60% remaining capacity. Water main 6. Public 8” water main is available with 140th Street ROW north of the 138th Street Intersection. Water main would need to be extended to the southeast along 140th Street and connected to the Garden View 12” Trunk Water main to adequately serve the site. Current available Fire Flow at 20 psi is <1,500 gpm. Average pressures are +61 psi within the Middle Pressure Zone. Storm water Management 7. The site is located within the Alimagnet Lake Watershed. Alimagnet Lake is currently listed as impaired for Excess Nutrients. In accordance with 2018 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), several storm water policies would need to be addressed for new or redevelopment of the site: a. Policy 6.1 The City requires compliance with all applicable post-construction water quality criteria for new and redevelopment activity adopted by the Black Dog Watershed Management Organization and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization, as described in the BDWMO Watershed Management Plan (2012, as amended) and VRWJPO Standards (2016, as amended). b. Policy 6.2 The City requires that all new, redeveloped, or expanded commercial, industrial, multiple residential, or institutional development provide infiltration for a volume equivalent to 0.5 inches of runoff over the area of the development. c. Policy 6.3 The City requires that new and redevelopment activity of 0.2 acres or more shall be required to achieve no-net-increase in average annual total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) loading compared to the pre- development condition of the site. d. Policy 6.4 The City may require additional treatment measures as needed for any development or re-development activity to protect downstream receiving waters, including, but not limited to, additional measures in TMDLs or WRAPS watersheds plans. 8. The site is also located adjacent to where areas of localized flooding has occurred during the 10- and 100-year, 24 hour storm events: a. Holyoke Path and Holyoke Lane b. Garden View Drive just south of 140th Street W. 9. In accordance with SWMP policy 1.5, the city requires that new development and redevelopment activities do not increase peak runoff rates relative to pre-project runoff rates for the 1-year, 2-year, 10-year and 100-year critical storm event. The City may impose more stringent rate control requirements if the capacity of the downstream system is limited. a. The downstream system (AL-P5 and AL-P6) from the site is limited in storm water capacity and any new or redevelopment will require more stringent rate control requirements. Natural Resources 10. Three (3) Wetlands were identified on site per the Wetland Delineation Report submitted to the City of Apple Valley on July 25, 2018. a. All 3 wetlands were determined to be Manage 2 wetlands and in accordance with Wetland and buffer policies within the 2018 SWMP. The following policies would need to be addressed for new or redevelopment of the site: i. Policy 4.4 The City requires water quality treatment of all storm water prior to discharge to wetlands. ii. Policy 4.5 The City requires that hydrologic impacts to wetlands resulting from development and redevelopment activities do not exceed the following: Wetland Classification Allowable bounce Allowable inundation period (1-year event) Allowable inundation period (2-year event) Allowable inundation period (10-year event) Protect Existing Existing Existing Existing Manage 2 Existing + 1.0ft Existing + 2 days Existing + 2 days Existing + 14 days iii. Policy 4.6 The City requires vegetated buffers zones adjacent to wetlands to be established for development and redevelopment activities. Required buffer zone widths from the delineated edge of the wetland are based on the type of development and wetland classification, as follows: Development Type Wetland Classification Average buffer width (ft) Minimum buffer width (ft) Minimum building setback from buffer (ft) New developments and subdivisions Manage 2 30 25 10 iv. Policy 4.7 The City requires that protective buffer zones be established consistent with the procedures and criteria established in City ordinance chapter 152.57. The protective buffer zone shall be memorialized in perpetuity by a written document approved by the City and a certified survey of the property which shall be recorded by Dakota County. The document shall establish the location of any buffer zones, restrictions, allowances, and management requirements. 9/26/2019 1 APPLE VALLEY GOLF COURSE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS APPLE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 MEETING APPLE VALLEY GOLF COURSE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS REQUEST Re-designate a 23-acre private golf course property from “PR” (Private Recreation) to the following: •.5 acres to “LD” (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per acre) •14.5 acres to “MD” (Medium Density Residential/6-12 units per acre) and •8 acres to “HD” (High Density Residential/12+ units per acre) 9/26/2019 2 LOCATION MAP SITE 1 4 0 T H S T WGARDEN VIEW DRH O L Y O K E L N 138TH ST W HOLYOKE CT135TH ST W 1 4 0 T H S T R E E T B L V D H O L Y O K E P A T H EXISTING COMP PLAN MAP SITE PR LD LD LD LD MD LD LD LD LD LD "PR" (Private Recreation) 9/26/2019 3 CURRENT DESIGNATION Apple Valley Golf Course currently designated “PR” (Private Recreation) 1. Any change in land use must be carefully considered for: a. the ability of the property to support the proposed use, b. the fit with the surrounding area; and the overall plans for Apple Valley 2. The golf course is surrounded by residential uses that might also be evaluated for comparison as to their density and value if a change is requested 3. Commercial uses are not encouraged unless those businesses have a residential character and are integrated in a mixed-use urban design PROPOSED COMP PLAN MAP "MD" - Medium Density Residential (14.5 acres) "HD" - High Density Residential (8 Acres) "LD" - Low Density Residential (.5 Acres) 1 4 0 T H S T W 135TH ST W GARDEN VIEW DRH O L Y O K E L N 1 3 4 T H S T W H OL Y OK E P A T H 138TH ST W HENNA AVEHERSHEY CTHERALD WAYHOLYOKE CT 9/26/2019 4 PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS Low Density Residential – Land uses include single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, twin homes, townhomes, and other types of attached housing. Densities in the LD areas are three to six units per acre Medium Density Residential -Land uses include townhomes, other attached single-family dwellings, and low-rise apartments and condominiums at densities that range between six and twelve units per acre High Density Residential - Land uses include multiple-family structures (apartments and condominiums) at densities greater than twelve units per acre to the extent allowed by the zoning ordinance COMPATIBLE ZONING Zoning in a “LD” designated areas include: •“R-1”, “R-2”, “R-3” or “R-CL”, which permit detached single-family dwellings •“R-5” (Two-Family Residential) •“M-1”, “M-2”, and “M-3” (Multi-Family Residential) •“PD” (Planned Development) zoning districts Zoning in “MD” designated areas include: •“M-4”, “M-5”, “M-6” (Multi-Family Residential) •“PD” zoning districts Zoning in “HD” designated areas include: •“M-7”, “M-8” (Multi-Family Residential) •“PD” zoning districts 9/26/2019 5 ZONING MAP Lake Alimagnet SITE P R-5 R-3 R-5 M4-C M4-C M4-C PD-144 R-2 R-3 R-3 R-3 M3-C M3-C M3-C M3-C M3-C R-3 R-3 R-3 R-5 P P P P P 14 0T H S T W MCANDREWS RD 1 3 4 T H S T W GARDEN VIEW DR135TH ST W 1 3 7 T H S T W HERALD WAYHAVELOCK TRLHOLYOKE LNREFLECTI ON RDHOLYOKE PATH R I M R O C K D R HENNA AVE138TH ST W HUNTINGTON DR H U R O N C T HERSHEY CT139TH CT PALOMINO DR HOLLINS CTHOLYOKE CT136TH CTHAVELOCK CT133RD ST W140T H S T R E ET B L V D138TH STREET CT HEMLOCK CTH U G H E S C T HUMMINGBIRD DR HAYES RD13 7TH CT HUNTINGTON CIR HEYWOOD PATHHOLIDAY CTHUM MI NGBIRD LN 134TH STREET CT L OWER 1 3 8 T H CTH E N N A C T 140TH STREET CTH E M L O C K C T 135TH ST W 13 7 T H C T DWELLING TYPE MAP CEDAR AVEM C A N D R E W S R D Dwelling Type Single Family Residential Duplex Townhouse Twin Home Apartment Assisted Living SITE 140TH STREET WEST CEDAR AVENUE 9/26/2019 6 PIPELINE MAP Northern Natural Gas Pipeline Great Lakes Pipeline WETLANDS MAP 9/26/2019 7 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MAP A.V. Golf Course 9/26/2019 8 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Table 1. Applicant Proposed Scenario Trip Generation with Full Build out of Site Type of Units Acres Units Per Acre Trips/Unit Total Trips Low Density 0.5 2 9.5 9.5 Medium Density 14.5 12 7.5 1305 High Density 8 24 5.5 1056 Total Trips 2371 Table 2. Staff Recommended Scenario Trip Generation with Full Build out of Site Type of Units Acres Units Per Acre Trips/Unit Total Trips Low Density 0.5 2 9.5 9.5 Medium Density 22.5 12 7.5 2025 High Density 0 24 5.5 0 Total Trips 2035 Table 3. Potential Net Acreage (total site less gas easement, wetlands and storm water) Scenario Trip Generation Type of Units Acres Units Per Acre Trips/Unit Total Trips Low Density 0.5 2 9.5 9.5 Medium Density 8 12 7.5 720 High Density 0 24 5.5 0 Total Trips 730 9/26/2019 9 AREA PARKS Wildwood Park Sunset Park Alimagnet Park Carrollwood Park Wallace Park Apple Valley High School Hayes Field And Arena Westview Elem. School Potential Net Students (total site less gas easement, wetlands and storm water) Type of Units Acres U.P.A. Number of Units Students Per Unit Total Students Low Density 0.5 2 1 .58 .58 Medium Density 8 12 96 .34 32.64 High Density 0 24 0 .320 0 Total Students 33.22 STUDENT PROJECTIONS Potential Net Students with Full Build Out Type of Units Acres U.P.A. Number of Units Students Per Unit Total Students Low Density 0.5 2 1 .58 .58 Medium Density 14.5 12 174 .34 59.16 High Density 8 24 192 .32 61.44 Total Students 121.18 Potential Net Students with Staff Recommended Scenario Type of Units Acres U.P.A. Number of Units Students Per Unit Total Students Low Density 0.5 2 1 .58 .58 Medium Density 22.5 12 270 .34 91.8 High Density 0 24 0 .32 0 Total Students 92.38 9/26/2019 10 STAFF’S RECOMMENDED ACTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Recommend the re-designation of Outlot B, Cobblestones I from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential). 2. Recommend the re-designation of Outlots A and C, and the north .25 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I and the north 13.5 acres of a 14.5-acre parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential). 3. Recommend denial of the re-designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential) due to the following findings: 1. Services such as shopping, transit, daycare, recreation, and other similar uses are not in close proximity to the site. 2. The site is not located where services are currently available and convenient or are expected to be in the future. 3. The site lacks thecritical link of potentialpeople to jobs and services. 4. The site is not located on a high-volume arterial corridor, such a CSAH 42 and Cedar Avenue(CSAH 23) that would provide access to retail, services and transit. 4. Recommend the re-designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) due to the following findings: 1. The topography, presence of natural features, its proximity to the adjacent collector roadways and land uses. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Recommend approval of the re-designation of Outlot B, Cobblestones I from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential) 2. Recommend denial of the re-designation of Outlots A and C, and the north .25 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I and the north 13.5 acres of a 14.5-acre parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) 3. Recommend denial of the re-designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential) due to the following findings: 9/26/2019 11 PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Consider one of the following motions: •Adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Council •Adopt a resolution affirming the Planning Commission's recommendation of the denial of the applicant's request •If the City Council chooses to adopt the resolution affirming the Commission’s recommendation, the Council should adopt a resolution directing the Planning Commission to review and recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property I T E M: 5.E. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Regular A genda Description: A dopt Resolution Regarding Hearing Officer's Recommended Findings and Decision Relative to Massage T herapy B usiness L icense for I mpression S pa, L L C, and Massage T herapist L icense for Yuanling L an S taff Contact: P amela J . Gackstetter, City Clerk Department / Division: City Clerk’s Office AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Adopt the resolution regarding the Hearing Officer's Recommended Findings and Decision relative to the Massage T herapy Business license for Impression Spa, LLC , and the Massage T herapist license for Yuanling Lan. S UM M ARY: Impression Spa, LLC, located at 7631 145th Street W., held a Massage T herapy Business license (License MB-2018-04), effective J uly 1, 2018, through J une 30, 2019. Ms. Yuanling Lan held a Massage T herapist license (License MT-2018-34), effective J uly 1, 2018, through J une 30, 2019. Based upon C ity C ode violations occurring at Impression Spa, during a compliance check by the Apple Valley Police Department on March 7, 2019, the City C lerk issued a Notice of Revocation of the Massage T herapy Business license held by Impression Spa, LLC , and of the Massage T herapist license held by Yuanling Lan. Following receipt of said Notice, Impression Spa, LLC , and Yuanling Lan made a request for a hearing. A hearing was held on J uly 10, 2019. T he hearing was presided by an appointed Hearing Officer, Mr. Peter G. Mikhail. T he Hearing O fficer issued his Recommended Findings and Decision which is attached (as Exhibit A to the resolution). It should be noted that Ms. Yuanling Lan is the sole owner and operator of Impression Spa, LLC. Apple Valley Code of Ordinance states in part "T he act of any employee of the licensee is deemed to be the act of the licensee. T he licensee shall be responsible for all acts and conduct attributable to and in connection with massage therapy services provided by the licensee or occurring on the premises of the massage therapy business." T he Hearing Officer found Impression Spa violated several provisions of the C ity C ode and recommended revocation of its Massage T herapy Business license. Based on the above, it is the recommendation of the Police Department, City C lerk's Office, and C ity Attorney that the C ity Council adopt the attached resolution which: Affirms the Hearing Officer's recommendations, and Immediately revokes the Massage T herapy Business license (MB-2018-04) of Impression Spa, LLC , and declares no subsequent license shall be issued to the business, and Does not revoke Yuanling Lan's Massage T herapist license (MT-2018-34), but declares no subsequent Massage T herapist license shall be issued to Ms. Yuanling Lan on the grounds that Ms. Lan's Massage T herapy Business license for Impression Spa, LLC , is revoked. B AC K G RO UND: N/A B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S : Resolution Exhibit CITY OF APPLE VALLEY RESOLUTION NO. 2019- A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND DECISION RELATIVE TO IMPRESSION SPA, LLC, AND YUANLING LAN WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.221, the City of Apple Valley (“City”) adopted licensing controls and regulations for massage therapy businesses and massage therapists operating within the City as set forth in Chapter 123 of the Apple Valley City Code of Ordinances (“Code”); and WHEREAS, Section 123.06 of the Code provides that a violation of any law or regulation related to the license issued under Chapter 123 shall be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license; and WHEREAS, Impression Spa, LLC, held a Massage Therapy Business license (License # MB-2018-04), effective July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019; and WHEREAS, Yuanling Lan held a Massage Therapist license (License # MT-2018-34) for massage services at Impression Spa, LLC, effective July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019; and WHEREAS, Yuanling Lan (“Lan”) is the sole owner and operator of Impression Spa, LLC; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk issued to Lan a NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS LICENSE AND MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE dated May 2, 2019. The Notice advised Lan that the City Council intended to consider a revocation and to take action at its May 23, 2019, based upon violations of Apple Valley City Code, Chapter 123, that occurred on or about March 7, 2019. The Notice further advised Lan of her right to a hearing to appeal the Notice of Revocation related to each license; and WHEREAS, Lan made request for a hearing relative to each license and the Council’s consideration and action was continued pending the hearing and receipt of recommended Findings and Decision of a hearing officer; and WHEREAS, a hearing was duly held on July 10, 2019, before a Hearing Officer. The hearing officer appointed and who presided over the hearing was Mr. Peter G. Mikhail; and WHEREAS, following the hearing, the Hearing Officer issued a Report and Recommendation, dated August 1, 2019. A true and correct copy of the Report and Recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the matter is now properly before the Council to consider the record, files, and materials accepted and made a part of the hearing record, together with the Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendation, and to take action of affirming or denying the revocation of the 2 relative to the Impression Spa, LLC, Massage Therapy Business license (License # MB-2018-04) and Yuanling Lan Massage Therapist license (License # MT-2018-34). NOW THEREFORE, the Council makes the following Findings: 1. Impression Spa, LLC, held a Massage Therapy Business license (License # MB- 2018-04), effective July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. Yuanling Lan held a Massage Therapist license (License # MT-2018-34) for massage services at Impression Spa, LLC, effective July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. 2. Yuanling Lan (“Lan”) is the sole owner and operator of Impression Spa, LLC. 3. Impression Spa, LLC, and Yuanling Lan received notice from the City of its intent to revoke the licenses and the grounds/facts upon which revocation is based. 4. Impression Spa, LLC, and Yuanling Lan made a timely request for a hearing and a hearing was duly held on July 10, 2019. The hearing was presided by an appointed hearing officer, Mr. Peter G. Mikhail. 5. The Hearing Officer’s Conclusions of Law are supported by his Findings of Fact and his Recommendations are supported by his Conclusions of Law. 6. The Hearing Officer’s Recommendations are consistent with and not contrary to the provisions of Apple Valley Code of Ordinances Chapter 123 or State law. 7. The Hearing Officer’s Findings and Conclusions as set forth in his Report and Recommendation, dated August 1, 2019, are adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if set out verbatim herein. 8. Impression Spa, LLC, as a Massage Therapy Business licensee, violated Chapter 123 of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, that the Recommendations of Hearing Officer Mikhail are hereby adopted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Impression Spa, LLC, Massage Therapy Business license (MB-2018-04) is hereby deemed revoked immediately and no subsequent license shall be issued. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Yuanling Lan’s Massage Therapist license (License # MT-2018-34) is not revoked. However, no subsequent Massage Therapist license to Yuanling Lan shall be issued on the grounds that Impression Spa, LLC, Massage Therapy Business license is revoked and Ms. Lan is the owner/operator of that licensed business. 3 ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2019. Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of Apple Valley on . Witness my hand officially as City Clerk this day of , 2019. Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk Exhibit A 9/26/2019 1 Clean-up Day Saturday, Sept. 28th 8:00 am to 1:00 pm Aquatic Center Parking Lot Accepted Items: Non-hazardous materials like: Appliances, Tires, Scrap Metal, Furniture, Remodeling Debris, and Paper for Shredding Fees Apply: See Website for Pricing Items NOT Accepted: Electronics, paint, cleaners, pesticides, fluorescent bulbs, oils, batteries, yard waste, railroad ties, and pharmaceuticals Note: Johnny Cake Ridge Road is closed south of the site so please enter from the north or east The longest line of the day will be at 8:00 am. Most people are on site for less than 5 minutes. I T E M: 7. C O UNC I L ME E T I NG D AT E:September 26, 2019 S E C T I O N:Calendar of Upcoming Events Description: A pprove Calendar of Upcoming E vents S taff Contact: S tephanie Marschall, Deputy City Clerk Department / Division: City Clerk’s Office AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve the calendar of upcoming events as listed in the summary below, and noting each event listed is hereby deemed a Special Meeting of the C ity Council. S UM M ARY: Day/Date Time L ocation E v ent Tue./Sep. 24 6:00 p.m.Municipal C enter Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee Meeting C A N C ELLED Wed./Sep. 25 9:00 a.m.Municipal C enter Firefighters Relief Association Meeting T hur./Sep.26 3:00-4:30 p.m.Municipal C enter Sean McKnight Retirement C elebration T hur./Sep. 26 6:15 p.m.Municipal C enter ED A Meeting T hur./Sep. 26 7:00 p.m.Municipal C enter Regular City C ouncil Meeting Tue./Oct. 1 7:30-9:00 a.m.Dunn Brothers C hamber C offee Connection Wed./Oct. 2 7:00 p.m.Municipal C enter Planning Commission Meeting Tue./Oct. 8 6:00-9:00 p.m.Fire Station No. 1 Fire Prevention Week Open House Wed./Oct. 9 6:00-9:00 p.m.Fire Station No. 2 Fire Prevention Week Open House T hur./Oct. 10 5:30 p.m.Municipal C enter Informal C ity Council Meeting T hur./Oct. 10 6:00-9:00 p.m.Fire Station No. 3 Fire Prevention Week Open House T hur./Oct. 10 7:00 p.m.Municipal C enter Regular City C ouncil Meeting Tue./Oct. 15 2:00 p.m.Municipal C enter C emetery Advisory C ommittee Meeting Wed./Oct. 16 7:00 p.m.Municipal C enter Planning Commission Meeting Tue./Oct. 22 3:00-4:00 p.m.Zvago Central Village Ribbon C utting Ceremony Tue./Oct. 22 6:00 p.m.Municipal C enter Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee Meeting Wed./Oct. 23 9:00 a.m.Municipal C enter Firefighters Relief Association Meeting T hur./Oct. 24 4:30-6:30 p.m.On-Site Title C hamber Business After Hours T hur./Oct. 24 7:00 p.m.Municipal C enter Regular City C ouncil Meeting Tue./Oct. 29 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Springs at C obblestone Lake Ribbon C utting Ceremony B AC K G RO UND: Each event is hereby deemed a Special Meeting of the C ity Council, the purpose being informational or social gathering. Only events marked with an asterisk (*) will any action of the Council take place. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A