Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-23-WSMayor: David Grant lt Councilmembers: �-A EN HILLS Brenda Holden Emily Rousseau City Council Work Session Tena Monson Tom Fabel Agenda February 21, 2023 5:00 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651-792-7800 Website: www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long-standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. This meeting can be accessed remotely by joining via Zoom (see Public Inquiries/Informational below for instructions) This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website. CALL TO ORDER 1. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Members of the public are invited to remotely monitor the City Council meeting via Zoom using the below link. Members are also welcome to provide public comments during this section of the agenda via Zoom. Members wishing to provide public comment must use the "raise hand" feature in Zoom to identify themselves as wanting to make a public comment and will be called upon to provide their public comment during this portion of the agenda. Those that speak must state their name and address for the record. HTTPS://US02WEB.ZOOM.US/J/89323055169 *Please make sure you have the most up-to-date version of Zoom to participate in the meeting* This is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council's attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. To facilitate a timely meeting, a speaker that is repeating, or agreeing with, a previous comment should simply state such and forego a longer comment. If a large number of citizens wish to speak, the Mayor may shorten the individual comment period. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the start of the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council Meeting. 2. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES 3. AGENDA ITEMS 3.A. Concept Plan Review - 1700 Highway 96 W - Senior Apartment Housing Proposal Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF 3.13. Hazelnut Park Ecological Restoration Plan Kerri Seemann, PTRC Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF 3.C. 2024 PMP Street And Utility Improvements Project David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 3.D. Parkshore Exercise Station Trail Loop - Official Name Discussion David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF 3.E. 2023 Capital Equipment Replacement - 2014 Bobcat Toolcat David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF 3.F. TCAAP Discussion Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF 3.G. Ordinance Review For Home Improvement Discussion Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF 3.H. Climate Action Roadmap Discussion Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF 3.1. Northeast Youth And Family Services (NYFS) Discussion Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 3.J. No Mow May Discussion Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF 3.K. Gathering Place Parking Lot Discussion Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 31. JDA Chair Interview And Selection Process Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF 3.M. Future Council Meeting Processes Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF 3.N. Council Tracker Dave Perrault, City Administrator Documents: MEMO.PDF 4. COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN AGENDA ITEM — 3A --ARZEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Concept Plan Review — 1700 Highway 96 West Trident Development - Senior Apartment Housing Proposal Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should consider a request for a Concept Plan Review for a proposed 124 unit senior market rate apartment development on the northwest side of the North Heights Lutheran Church property at 1700 Highway 96 West. The Applicant is seeking feedback from the City Council on the concept plan in advance of the full submission which would include a land use application for items such as a Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development. The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments and questions regarding proposed developments. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the City and Applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal action can be taken at a Work Session. A formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. Background Trident Development is proposing a 124 unit senior apartment development (apartments only, the proposed will not have an assisted living or memory care component) on the northwest side of the North Heights Lutheran Church property at 1700 Highway 96 West. Prior to this submission, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 29, 2021 in order to garner feedback from the adjacent landowners on the proposed site development. The Applicant has included a summary of the meeting comments as part of this submission. Public comments and questions were primarily regarding traffic, access, impacts on neighborhood (i.e. property values and Royal Hills Park), and noise. Pagel of 8 In 2017 and 2018, the City Council considered two Concept Plan Review applications for the development of senior living housing which would have comprised of independent, assisted, and memory care units on this same property. Both of those concept proposals had the placement of the building on the south side of the property with the primary access to the site from Snelling Avenue north of the intersection with Royal Hills Drive. At that time, the Council expressed concerns about building height, massing, traffic, and the required property rezoning. Additionally, the Council provided direction that the northwest corner of the property should be considered for the development. The minutes from those two Work Sessions are included with this report as Attachments E and F. The former Applicant evaluated this site and determined that development would not be feasible due to the presence of several large wetlands and additional construction costs. In the end, the former Developer made the decision not to move forward with a formal land use application. Most recently, the Applicant received City Council feedback on this proposal at a prior work session on February 22, 2022. At this work session, the City Council noted their support of the project but expressed concerns over building height, site access, stormwater management, and floor area ratio. The Council also encouraged the Applicant to investigate including affordable units and outdoor amenities in the proposal. Following this meeting, the Applicant applied for two Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Chapter 6, Land Use. The Applicant requested to change the future land use designation of approximately 10.75 acres in the northwest corner of the Subject Property to High Density Residential (HDR). The 30+/- acres of development land on the Subject Property remains guided as Public and Institutional (P/I). The Applicant also requested a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Section 6.4.10 to increase the maximum housing unit density as part of a Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission had concerns with traffic, access, noise, neighborhood character, and the potential for additional high density units in this neighborhood and recommended denial by a 5-1 vote. Both Comprehensive Plan Amendments were approved and adopted as requested by the City Council on July 11, 2022. Discussion Existing Conditions North Heights Lutheran Church owns the approximately 41 acre parcel with an address of 1700 Highway 96 West located on the south side of Highway 96 and directly east of U.S. Highway 10. The church chapel and education wing are located roughly in the center of the property. The chapel of the North Heights Lutheran Church was constructed in 1986 and the education wing was completed in 1998. Two large surface parking areas are located on the north and east side of the chapel and educational wing. The remainder of the site is wooded and includes wetland areas and stormwater infrastructure required for the existing development. Page 2 of 8 Subject Property The principal access to the site is from Highway 96 between Snelling Avenue and U.S. Highway 10. This access point is directly south of where the main roadway on the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) redevelopment site will be constructed. A secondary access is located in the northeast corner of the site on Snelling Avenue. As part of the original approval for the church campus, the City required that no right turns be permitted out of the Snelling Avenue driveway so as to direct traffic to the north. Currently, the main entrance and the Snelling Avenue intersection with Highway 96 are not signalized. A signal is planned for the North Heights entrance with the construction of the main TCAAP roadway. The majority of the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District. Approximately 6 acres of land at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the Highway 96 and U.S. Highway 10 interchange is zoned B-1, Limited Business District. The property is also within 1,000 feet of Round Lake and would be subject to applicable Shoreland regulations. The Subject Property is guided for High Density Residential and Public and Institutional uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In terms of the surrounding area, the 427-acre TCAAP redevelopment site is located north of the property across Highway 96, and there are primarily single family residential neighborhoods to the east and west. Royal Hills Park borders the property to the south. North Heights Property North South East West R-1 (35 acres) TRC — Flex Parks and B-1 (6 acres) Office, Retail Open Zoning Shoreland Mixed Use Space R-1 R-1 High Density Low Density Residential (+i- Flex Office, Parks and Residential, Low Future 10.75 acres) Retail Mixed Open Very Low Density Land Use Public & Use TCAAP Space Density Residential Page 3 of 8 Institutional (+i- Residential 30 acres Concept Plan Proposal For this project, Trident Development, LLC would be the Developer and project manager, and LifeSpark Senior Living would be the long-term operator of the project. Both are stated to have a number of years of professional experience for development within this marketspace and would be ownership partners for this project. Trident Development has a mixed unit senior living facility recently completed in Arden Hills called Round Lake Senior Living at 1740 Parkshore Drive. Trident Development is proposing to subdivide and purchase 10.75 acres in the northwest corner from North Heights Lutheran Church. This parcel would be developed with a 124 unit, age restricted 55+ senior independent living apartment building. The units would be targeted at market -rate featuring high -end amenities. The building is proposed to be 3-story with a pitched roof design estimated to be a height of 44' from the highest roof peak. The principal exterior materials on the building would be stone, lap siding, and board & batten siding. Elements of architectural design have been included to enhance the exterior appearance such as a series of dormers, together with a variation of bump -outs. Other amenities to the apartment community will include an outdoor patio and grill area, rooftop sky lounge with outdoor fireplace, fitness center, and walking paths. Unit sizes will range from 750 - 850 square feet +/- for a one bedroom apartment, 950 — 1,200 square feet +/- for two bedrooms, and then 1,450 square feet for a three bedroom unit. The proposed unit sizes exceed the minimum requirements for multi- family dwellings which are: • One -bedroom units shall be a minimum of seven hundred (700) square feet • Two -bedroom units shall be a minimum of nine hundred and fifty (950) square feet At the February 22, 2022 City Council Work Session, the Applicant provided further details on the proposed project. He discussed how the parking would be restriped and added to in order to keep the church use in compliance. He noted a pedestrian trail would meander along the west side of the building and would connect to a fire lane at the rear portion of the building. He stated the building would have an underground parking structure and commented on how the apartment traffic would not conflict with church traffic. He finally detailed the exterior building materials that would be used on the structure which included vinyl windows, powder coated balconies, brick and LP siding. For new development in residential zoning districts, the city code does not reference a requirement for a percentage of preferred materials to be used in the building design similar to the business zoning districts. However, the City Council is directed in Section 1325.05 — Design Standards, Subd. 6, for Aesthetics to evaluate the impacts on surrounding area due to the proposed design, scale, massing, materials, height and other aspects of the subject matter as to whether the appearance will cause a substantial depreciation in the property values in the surrounding area or to unreasonable detract from the appearance of the area or the city as a whole. Page 4 of 8 Viewpoint facing North Viewpoint facing Southeast The proposed senior apartment building would trigger requests for rezoning from B-1, Limited Business and R-1, Single Family Residential to R-4, Multiple Dwelling District. On July 11, 2022, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved to re -guide 10.75 acres of the Subject Property from Public and Institutional to HDR, High Density Residential. The maximum density allowed within the R-4 District and HDR District is 12 units per acre. As their development plans are finalized, Staff would verify as part of a future land use application that the newly created lot and total number of units complies with the maximum density requirements or a request for flexibility would be required as part of the PUD. Based on the concept review plans, the proposed development would have a net density of 14 units per acre. Land Use Site Wetland Net Proposed Proposed Density Acreage Area Acreage Density Per Acre 124 units/8.29 acres — 14.95 HDR 10.75 2.46 8.29 124 14 The building will include 1-story of underground parking that would be sufficient for approximately 124 units with an additional 105 surface parking spaces as shown on the site plan submitted. The table included in their narrative based on an approximate breakdown of units by number of bedrooms indicates that they would need to establish between 178 — 215 parking Page 5 of 8 spaces. City Code for off-street parking requirements would be 1.1 parking stall per efficiency and 1 bedroom units, and 2 parking stalls for each 2+ bedroom units. Furthermore, Section 1325.045 for Multi -family Dwelling Units Additional Conditional Use Permit Criteria states that "A minimum of one enclosed parking stall shall be provided per dwelling unit. Enclosed parking structures shall be attached to at least one of the principal structures to which parking is being provided. " At this stage in the concept plans, the Applicant has indicated that the unit count and parking space requirements would still subject to change. They have expressed an intent to comply with the minimum requirements if the project moves forward. The surface parking will be located on the east side of the building with curbing and landscaping around the perimeter to create a separation of parking areas from the existing North Heights Lutheran Church parking. The underground parking and surface parking each have one primary access point that is intended to direct traffic towards Highway 96. The Applicant has shown in the renderings that the access points will be identified as "Left Turn Only" with signage showing "No Right Turn" movements to reinforce traffic patterns towards Highway 96. A turnaround fire access lane is shown around the rear of the building for emergency service needs. Lastly in review of the proposed senior apartment building, City Code Section 1325.045 includes additional criteria that would be evaluated as part of the Conditional Use Permit review such as a lighting plan, security plan, and bicycle parking. With the intent of this application only to seek initial feedback from the Council on the proposed concept, the Applicant has not finalized all of these items at this stage in their development planning. The Applicant would be required to submit all of the requirements as referenced in this section as part of a future land use application for a CUP. Trident Development has provided a preliminary site plan, building elevations, interior floor plans, a wetland delineation, and 3D conceptual renderings of the building from various viewpoints. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change designation of development site from Public and Institutional to High Density Residential was approved. Based on an initial review, staff believes the proposal would require the following land use requests: • Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Subdivision • Vacation of Easements (i.e. drainage/wetland) • Rezoning of the development site from B-1, Limited Business and R-I — Single -Family Residential District to R-4 — Multiple Dwelling District • Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Family Dwelling in the R-4 District • Planned Unit Development for performance standard flexibility (Applicant's narrative indicates a request for FAR and building height) The table below provides the performance standards for the R-4 District, Shoreland Regulations and the preliminary analysis for the proposed development: Trident Development R-4 District Standards Shoreland District Proposal Minimum Lot Area per Approximately 3,776 Unit 3,630 s.f/unit 11,000 s.f/unit s.f./124 unit Maximum Building Approximate 39 feet — Height 35 feet 35 feet 43 feet Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.3 N/A 0.3645 Maximum Structure Coverage 25% of lot area N/A 12.15% Page 6 of 8 Minimum Landscape Not specified, but not Lot Area 65% of lot area 65% of lot area seeking flexibility Maximum PUD Density 12 units/acre N/A 14.95 units/acre 124 Defaults to R-4 as To be verified as part of Minimum Front Yard nonriparian lot future land use Setback 40 feet application Defaults to R-4 as To be verified as part of Minimum Rear Yard nonriparian lot future land use Setback 30 feet application Defaults to R-4 as To be verified as part of Minimum Side Yard 5 feet (min)/15 feet nonriparian lot future land use Setback (total) application 124 +/- enclosed 1.1 stall/1 bedroom 105 +/- surface 2 stall/2+ bedroom N/A Flexibility would not be Off -Street Parking CUP 1 enclosed/unit requested Stormwater & Wetlands The Applicant has stated as part of the site grading that a stormwater retention pond will be created on the south side of the proposed development. Additionally, they anticipate there may be the need to construct an underground retention system due to space constraints of the site. At this time, the Applicant has indicated no other details are known on the scope of this work, but as the project progresses they will develop those engineered plans for the City Engineer to review. As noted above, the Concept Review submittal documents included a Wetland Delineation Report. Similarly, to stormwater management, the Applicant has indicated they are working through the logistics of the location of existing wetlands and impacts to placement of site development. They've identified from the wetland delineation that the existing drainage/wetland easements are no longer in alignment with actual wetlands. The Applicant recognizes that if they decide to move forward with the project that existing easements will need to be vacated and new easements shall be dedicated as part of the platting process. Page 7 of 8 CWnTT HICHwnv 96 W 0 `\ 1� J .taen cucw.nons �,4:,, PA0.1flNC. AIIMIfARY wsrvw cwnw vnuz [xwrtx z¢ wirl ...xtn =w�ose� iv.x:cx m.m (xmm ax wxYa .:tux yV 1, aro^mm w.Fimrt nau[s (a�Acq.... ... nes � f� 1 •roossa wecrfxr 9e�s tmvesR..........x�s. '. ti n . wm....... x. u�[ns ........... .......... xxa 1 Traffic Analysis For the Concept Review submittal, the Applicant has not included a traffic study for the proposed project area. From their neighborhood meeting held in July 2021, the proposed use from standard market apartments has shifted to age -restricted senior apartments. The Applicant indicates this age -restricted demographic change will result in a reduced quantity of new apartment residents with jobs which means an overall reduction in vehicular trip generation, and reduced peak AM/PM trip generation. The Applicant would be required as part of the full submission to include a traffic study in order for the application to be considered complete for City Council consideration. Budtet Impact ►MM Attachments A. Project Narrative B. Preliminary Development Plans and Renderings C. Neighborhood Meeting Summary D. Wetland Delineation E. WS Minutes March 20, 2017 F. WS Minutes May 21, 2018 G. WS Minutes February 22, 2022 H. Presentation Page 8 of 8 TRIDENT° 0J DEVELOPMEN` January 30, 2023 Jessica Jagoe, City Planner Members of the City Council City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: HIGHWAY 96 SENIOR INDEPENDENT LIVING DEVELOPMENT — CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Ms. Jagoe and Members of the City Council: Attachment A Trident Development, LLC is pleased to present this request for Council Work Session regarding a proposed senior independent living development located near the intersection of County Highway 96 and U.S Highway 10. We request a place on the Monday, February 20, 2023 Work Session agenda. OVERVIEW: •124-unit, age restricted (55+), senior independent living community. -High-amenity market -rate product (not income restricted). •3-stories of habitable space above ground; wood framed -construction with a pitched -roof. •1-story of parking garage below ground; concrete construction. •Access to come from County Highway 96 only (no access to Snelling Avenue). *Approximately 10.75-acres of land to be purchased/subdivided from the current landowner --North Heights Lutheran Church. *Project will fill unmet demand for Senior Independent Living units within the Arden Hills Marketplace. *On June 27, 2022, the Arden Hills City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, guiding the subject site as R4 High Density Residential use. Trident Development will be the project manager and LifeSpark Senior Living will be the operator/property manager. Trident and LifeSpark have a long history of successfully developing, owning, and operating senior multi -family communities. Because Trident Development and LifeSpark are ownership partners, additional care is given to: the design/ quality of the building, how it will last the test -of -time, how the project fits within the community, and how well it will serve the needs of residents. 1200 25th Avenue South • St. Cloud, MN 56301 Phone: 320-258-4438 • Fax: 320-252-3603 a Website: www.tridentdevelopmentmn.com REQUEST: Trident Development, LLC is seeking review of the proposed development at a City Council Work Session on February 20, 2023, specifically a review of and comment on a variety of areas in which Trident will seek design flexibility. These requests for flexibility are more fully described in the attached, Supplemental Details - Exhibit A. DEVELOPER Trident Development, LLC is based in St. Cloud, MN and has considerable experience in the development, construction, and ownership of high -quality developments. Trident's team of real estate professionals have over 40 years of real estate experience. Trident's latest project, Round Lake Senior Living, at 1740 Parkshore Dr., Arden Hills, is a near -by example of Trident's dedication to quality assisted living communities. Please visit Trident's website for examples of completed projects, information on projects currently under construction, and to learn more about their team: https://www.tridentdevelopmentmn com/. If desired, the developer would be happy to arrange a tour of completed projects for elected officials or staff. ENCLOSED • Concept -level preliminary plans: visual rendering, elevation, box floor plan, site plan. • Concept -level civil site plan (overall parking plan, preliminary storm water plan). • Supplemental Details — Exhibit A. NOTE: changes to the enclosed concept -level plans will occur. Concept level plans are intended to provide preliminary level information for discussion purposes. Formalized and detailed plans will be submitted by the developer with future formal land use applications. We welcome the guidance and feedback from a Council Work Session. Prior to the meeting, we are available to answer questions. On behalf of our development team, we are excited partner with this City of Arden Hills to bring a high -quality senior independent living development to the community. ctfully, \.w Roger D. Fink, Sr. Vice President Trident Development, LLC Page 2 of 10 EXHIBIT A: SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILS [following pages] Page 3 of 10 GENERAL DESCRIPTION North Heights Lutheran Church currently owns approximately 41-acres of land situated on the southeast corner of County Highway 96 and US Highway 10, of which the subject property (approximately 10.75-acres) will be subdivided from and conveyed to the developer for this proposed project. This proposed project will include a professional managed, high -amenity, market -rate, senior (age 55+), apartment building. The building will be designed as a 124 unit, 3-story, wood -framed structure with a pitched roof, and heated underground parking. The building will include wood -framed construction on a pre- stressed concrete plank deck over an underground parking garage, with passenger elevator service. This senior independent living building will include a wide scope of amenities and generous landscaping. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Exterior materials are anticipated to utilize a complimentary blend of cultured stone, lap siding, and board/baton siding. An emphasis will be placed on the main building entry point by introducing additional amount of cultured stone. The architectural design is expected to implement a series of dormers, together with variation of vertical plane (bump -outs) providing visual interest. A variety of complimentary exterior material colors are proposed to create visual appeal and soften the mass of the building size. The developer has engaged HMA architects to design, draft, and submit building plans, elevations, and visual renderings. Additional architectural detail will be provided when future formal applications are submitted. DWELLING UNITS This project will offer a variety of market -rate senior independent living apartment units. This project does not include income -restricted units. Below are current preliminary unit projections. Unit Style Quantity Square Feet Studio units 3 (2%) 550 +/- 1-bedroom units 18 (15%) 750 +/- 1-bedroom + den 14 (11%) 850 +/- 2-bedroom 55 (441Y.) 950 -1,050 +/- 2-bedroom + den 26 (21%) 1,200 +/- 3-bedroom units 8 (6%) 1,450+/- Each apartment unit is currently anticipated to be furnished with: • Wall-to-wall carpeting • Luxury vinyl plank flooring in kitchen, baths and laundry rooms • High quality door hardware, light fixtures and faucets • Complete kitchen appliance package including: refrigerator, electric range/oven, built-in micro- waves, dish washers. • Each unit is equipped with a washer and dryer • Heat and A/C is provided by gas -fired "magic pack' equipment • Mini -blind window treatments • Generous closet space • Balconies or private patios Page 4 of 10 FEATURES & AMENITIES This apartment community is anticipated to include the following amenities and features: • Spacious entry lobby with seating attractive design • Community room for resident parties, resident happy hours, and family gatherings • Commercial kitchen with limited meal services • Spacious outdoor patio and grill area • Rooftop sky lounge with outdoor fireplace and game room; including a golf simulator • Fitness center with gym -quality equipment • Private tenant storage lockers • Centralized mail delivery area, with automated parcel handling system • Security and surveillance camera system; controlled access entry system • Extensive open space and trail system • Activities and events programing • Professional on -site management ZONING The subject property currently includes three zoning district assignments: R1 Single Family Residential, Planned Unit Development, and B-1 Limited Business District. In July of 2022, the property was approved for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment re -guiding the use to "R4 High Density Residential'. A zoning amendment will still be required to proceed with the proposed development. Listed below are the anticipated formal land use applications/approvals that will be required for this proposed senior living apartment project: • Zoning Amendment — change to R4 Multiple Family District ('base zoning district") • Planned Unit Development (PUD) — including a release from the previous PUD • Condition Use Permit (CUP) — including a release from the previous CUP • Subdivision/Plat — including a release and reestablishment of various easements • Project will trigger review by: MnDOT, MnDNR, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the Ramsey County Highway Department LAND USE Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District does allow for multi -family apartment buildings. Developer is proposing an age -restricted, multi -family, apartment building. Developer is not aware of any required deviation to City Zoning Code for this proposed use. NOTE: Developer is utilizing the R4 Multi Family Zoning District as the "base district" for this proposed project. As mentioned in the above Zoning section, this will require a Zoning Amendment. LOT SIZE & DENSITY Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District allows for a maximum lot size of 3,030 sf per dwelling unit. The subject property is approximately 10.75 acres, or 468,270 sf. 468,270 sf / 3,030 sf = 154 maximum units. The Developer is proposing 124 units. Developer is not aware of any required deviation to City Zoning Code for lot size and density. NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City's Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sf. It is the Developers interpretation that this proposed project complies with said section of City Zoning Code (lot is 446,054 sf). Page 5 of 10 FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District allows for a maximum FAR of 0.3. The proposed building footprint is approximately 54,200 sf and includes three floors of dwelling/habitable space, for an approximate total of 162,600 sf (note: garage not included in calculation). 162,600 sf of dwelling/habitable space / 468,270 sf total lot size = .3472 FAR. Developer believes a deviation to City Zoning Code for maximum FAR is required. BUILDING & IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT COVERAGE Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District allows for a maximum building lot coverage of 25%. The proposed building footprint is approximately 54,200 sf. 54,200 sf building footprint / 468,270 sf total lot size =11.5% building lot coverage. Developer believes a deviation to City Zoning Code for maximum building lot coverage is not required. NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City's Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires a maximum impervious surface coverage of 35%. It is the Developers interpretation that this proposed project complieswith said section of City Zoning Code (project will include approximately 25-35% impervious surface). LANDSCAPING LOT COVERAGE Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District requires a minimum landscaping coverage of 65%. The subject property is approximately 10.75 acres in gross size. About half of the property is physically buildable (the remaining portions include wetlands, drainage, lowlands, steep slopes, or are inaccessible). Assuming this requirement is based on areas that are buildable, the Developer does not believe a deviation to City Zoning Code for minimum landscaping coverage is required. NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City's Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires Developer generally dedicate a portion of property for public open space. Developer will need assistance from City staff to further define this requirement. Developer anticipates sufficient opportunity exists to provide open space to the public (assumption: public trail within wetlands areas). BUILDING HEIGHT Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District allows for a maximum building of 35'. Which is based on the average height between eaves and the peak of a pitched roof. The proposed building includes an approximate eave height of 32', and an approximate highest roof peak height of 44'. Developer believes a deviation to City Zoning Code for maximum building height will be required. The exact requested building height request will be known upon submittal of a formal PUD application. Developer currently estimates a deviation to 4'-8' will be required. NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City's Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires a maximum building height of 35'. The Developer is unsure how this section of City Zoning Code defines height. If height in this section of code is to the roof eave—this proposed project is in compliance (32' eave proposed by Developer). If height is defined as the roof peak and/or average roof peak then this project may not be in compliance. Page 6 of 10 NOTE: if providing flexibility to this requirement is not available to the Developer, alternative solutions to meet this requirement will be explored. Examples include utilizing a flat roof. The developer is proposing a pitched roof to better compliment the surrounding single family residential neighborhoods. BUILDING SETBACKS Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District requires the following minimum building setbacks: 40' front yard, 30' rear yard, 10' side yard, 40' side yard corner. The proposed project includes building setbacks that well -exceed the City's required minimums —please see enclosed site plan for details. The Developer does not believe a deviation to City Zoning Code for minimum building setbacks is required. NOTE: this site is also encumbered by the City's Shoreland Overlay District. Said district requires a minimum building setback from streets and highways of 40'. It is the Developers interpretation that this proposed project complies with said section of City Zoning Code. PARKING Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, the R4 Multiple Family District requires the following minimum parking provisions: 1.1 per studio, 1.1 per 1-bedroom, 2 for 2-bedroom. The finalized unit mix and parking count for this project has not been determined. The following is the current approximate assumption. The Developer will update/finalize within the next submittal. Example based on 124 Units %of Units # of Units City Reg Stalls Proposed Studio/ 1 Bbd Proposed = 28% 35 38.5 xx 2 Bbd 3 Bbd Proposed = 72% 89 178 xx 216.5 216 The Developer does not believe a deviation to City Zoning Code for minimum parking stalls will be required. VEHICLE ACCESS Based on informal input obtained from two neighborhood meetings RE this proposed project —the developer believes access should come from County Highway 96 exclusively —and no access to this proposed project shall be allowed internally, through the existing North Heights Lutheran Church campus (to Snelling Avenue). In an effort to accomplish said goal, the Developer has made the following adjustments to the proposed site plan: • The apartments parking lot, and the North Heights Lutheran Church parking lot, are now separated by a physical barrier (raised boulevard with landscaping). • Access to the apartments garage and apartments surface parking lot are located at furthest northern possible location —against County Highway 96. • Provisions of exiting restrictions have been added to both apartment exit points. The developer has added: a left turn only arrow to be painted on the pavement, at both apartment exit points; a no right turn sign has been added at both apartment exit points; concrete curbing will be bumped (as much as allowed by City Engineer) to help force left only exits —and help physically restrict right -out exits —at both apartment exit points. • Developer further proposes a restrictive "pork chop" median at the Snelling Ave access to prevent right -turn movement when exiting the church's property. Page 7 of 10 Internal to the site, care will be placed in the design of the parking lot to allow for the flow and circulation of both residents' vehicles and larger vehicles; such as fire apparatus and delivery trucks; which allow delivery trucks to safely and efficiently enter the site. The developer has included a 24' wide internal circulation dive lane for parking areas, and a 20' wide fire department access road around the rear of the building —which includes a turn -around provision. FIRE SAFETY An automatic fire suppression system is provided throughout the building (NFP 13), which will be monitored 24 hours a day. The developer will work with Fire Department and Building Official to properly locate a riser room, mechanical room, fire suppression controls/ systems, and a lock box. Fire hydrants will be included within the future detailed design. TRASH/ RECYCLING Trash collection is expected to occur in designated trash rooms located in the underground parking garage. Trash rooms are anticipated to served by trash chutes accessible to all floors of the building. No trash/refuse area will be proposed outside of the building. TRAILS This project will include pedestrian trails on the northwest side of the proposed apartment building. Pedestrian trails will be connected to the regional county trail system located along the south side of County Highway 96. Exact trail layouts have yet to be determined and will be formalized and updated upon the next submittal for this project. WATER & SANITARY SEWER Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer services will likely be accessed from U.S. Highway 10. City water services will likely be accessed from County Highway 96. The developer will be utilizing Carlson McCain to provide civil engineering/design services. As this project progresses, the Carlson McCain will provide additional details and updates. STORM WATER & GRADING Currently, the existing site grade generally flows from the northeast to the southwest —towards Round Lake. The developer anticipates creating a large storm water cell located directly south of the proposed apartment building. Additionally, due to space constraints, the Developer anticipates the potential need to construct an underground stormwater storage tank. The developer will be utilizing Carlson McCain to provide civil engineering/design services. As this project progresses, the Carlson McCain will provide additional details. WETLANDS The Developer has engaged Kjolhaug Environmental Services to conduct a wetland delineation for the subject property. Results are included within this submittal. Important notes: 1. The City has existing drainage/wetland easements in place today. Said existing easements are no longer in alignment with actual wetlands. There are now delineated wetlands located outside of the existing easement areas; and there are also areas within the original easements that no longer contain delineated wetlands. 2. The Developer's proposed building plans require the above -mentioned item #1 will be addressed through this project. Specifically, the original easements will be officially vacated by the City; and a new replacement easement will be recorded based on the recently completed wetland delineation. Page 8 of 10 PARK DEDICATION Based on Developer's review and interpretation of City Zoning Code, Section 1130.08 Public Use Dedications requires the following land/cash dedication is required for City parks: 20% of land or a Cash Contribution of equating to the fair market value of the land that would have otherwise been dedicated. The Developer is purchasing the subject property for $2,250,000. 20% of $2.25M is $450,000. As a result, the Developer is anticipating providing the City a $450,000 Park Dedication Pee for this project. The Developer is happy to share a copy of the in -place purchase agreement directly with City staff to verify the purchase price. INCENTIVES & PROPERTY TAXES This project is not seeking any local government incentives. This project does not include any low-income units. The subject property is currently tax-exempt; and pays no annual property taxes. Upon completion of construction, the new project/subject property will convert from tax-exempt to fully taxable; and is anticipated to pay between $300,000 and $400,000 in gross total annual property taxes. In addition to property taxes, this project will generate an estimated $1,000,000+ of 1x development fees (park dedication, water, sewer, stormwater, building permit); including an estimated $450,000 park dedication fee. NORTH HEIGHTS CHURCH CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS This senior living apartment project includes improvements located offsite—not within the primary subject apartment property. Offsite improvements will be located on the existing/remaining North Heights Lutheran Church campus. improvements generally include: • Re -seal and re -stripe existing church parking lot. Expansion of church parking lot in three areas: o (Area 1) approximately 72 stalls directly northeast of the existing church building o (Area 2) approximately 15 stalls directly east of the existing church building o (Area 3) approximately 56 stalls directly south of the existing church building. o The net result for North Heights Lutheran Church is to maintain its existing total surface parking stall count, prior to this apartment project —as the apartment building requires taking of land currently utilized by the church for parking. • The above -mentioned parking lot expansions will require the creation of a new storm water cell located directly south of the church building. Additionally, other existing stormwater cells located on church property may need to be slightly expanded to account for new nearby church parking stalls. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING As requested by City Staff, the Developer conducted a public neighborhood input meeting on 7/29/2021. At the time, the developer was proposing a standard market apartment building (not senior, not age restricted). As a result of said meeting, the Developer made the following adjustments to the proposed project: 1. Adjusted the proposed use from standard market apartments to age -restricted senior apartments. Most residents will be 65+ (and will be retired). The Developer anticipates this will result in: Page 9 of 10 o Reduced quantity of new apartment residents with jobs; resulting in reduced overall vehicular trip generation and reduced peak AM/PM vehicular trip generation. o No new apartment residents with children; resulting in minimal and/or no demand on Royal Park. Conversely, this project will provide the City $450,000 of Park Dedication fees — benefiting existing residents, with children, that do utilize Royal Park. 2. Adjusted apartment access points to come from Highway 96 only. The Developer anticipates this will result in: o Reduced ability/incentive for apartment residents to drive through the North Heights Lutheran Church parking lot to utilize Snelling Avenue. o Details provided in 'Vehicle Access" section of this document. 3. Increased on -site amenity -package. The Developer anticipates this will result in: o For senior residents that have grandchildren as guests —there will be a strong preference to utilize convenient on -site amenities. Examples: game room, party room, outdoor patio area, trails, gym, commercial kitchen and dining room. o This will result in little/no demand on Royal Park. 4. Noise -study now included within project scope. Developer will make necessary changes to the building materials to address any potential noise issues. 5. No income restricted units are programmed for this development. This will be a 100% market -rate senior independent living apartment building. Page 10 of 10 merooi elosauuiN "I I.H -PaH arres�rs�i Sam. axanisa aesnaxvs sxaasn S1N3W1b VdV SIIIH N3ObV TO£9S NW'PnoU'is w 1V1N3xNONW13 NIV:D5W £OT alinS'S l-4s 418T 109£ 71l'1N3WdOl3A3O 1N3OIa1 6 - ``` sxia3,wro NOSIUVO oxnssxis'a O Ntlld 1d3JNOJ o„� s 1 0 311 H 0 8 V paCaday;jo;uawdolanapjaLWnjbuunppajlnbaise ZZOZ•T£•Z O suoReoylpow'oulw o; aoa[gns aie pue a6eas sly; le Dpewayos is IIV :310N ;uauado!anad ;uap!al xa!duao� 6u!n!� +SS SII!H uapabr *'i I it f xxV ] \ t c�' / 1F -7 ❑ a LL t Q � ;1• s 1 0 311 H 0 8 V paCaday;jo;uawdolanapjaLWnjbuunppajlnbaise ZZOZ•T£•Z V suoReoylpow'oulw o; a'a[gns aie pue a6eas sly; le Dpewayos is IIV :310N ;uauado!anad ;uap!al xa!duao� 6u!n!� +SS SII!H uapabr *'i s 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 8 V paCad ay; jo;uawdolanap jaLWnj buunp pajlnbai se �/� suopeoylpow'oulw o; aoa[gns aie pue a6eas sly; le opewayos s6ulMeJp IIV :310N ZZOZ' T £' T tD ;uauado!anaa ;uap!al xa!dwo) 6u!n!l +SS SII!H UBPJV o d o O Z � ' I u Z ■ ■ Q Lu F F 111 W w Ln o I Y INSa o oEn ■ ■ ' ' a w ■_ �I Cf a� �,. >_ o Zo I I >� •, • LU ■ �� K ww Z Lu Y Z LU ii ii i w w Q _ z __ I I I m K ■ ■ 0 m �:: ■ ■ ® ® a g0o I I I z got ■ ■ I ■ LU H w w I I I In x Qm I I� Id NIZ _. �. G J a _ ■ wQ C u ■� `m m m .. .. W Ln AA>'' Ln I WWII LU LU L L m Z£ 'XO'dddV m a a bb 'XO'dddV s 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 8 V paCad ay; jo;uawdolanap jaLWnj buunp pajlnbai se suoReoylpow 'oulw o; aoa[gns aie pue a6eas sly; le ol]ewayos s6ulMeJp IIV :310N ZZOZ , T £, T ;uauadolanaa ;uapial xaldwo� 6u. . +SS SIM UBPJV ■� l e C. rrt r e G m0 C Vol, C OR III Ml . 0 p ' ® LU mmoll !� III NO me 0 r � a z oc . s 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 8 V paCad ay; jo;uawdolanap jaLWnj buunp pajlnbai se suopeoylpow 'oulw o; aoa[gns aie pue a6eas sly; le opewayos s6ulMeJp IIV :310N ZZOZ ' T £' T M ;uauadolanaa ;uapial xaldwo) 6uinil +SS SIM UBPJV O 0 o 0 o Y a 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 o � w °p • • ° � 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 w 0 °� • • ° • Ln Q LL O z� (f) Y j Q L x w � m � � z0 m O p U LL • O O • O • • O O O O • O � O U) KE O o O z • O O o ° a o` 0 LL 4 J IL u`�i s 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 8 V paCad ay; jo;uawdolanap jaLWnj buunp pajlnbai se suoReoylpow 'oulw o; aoa[gns aie pue a6eas sly; le ol]ewayos s6ulMeJp IIV :310N ZZOZ ' T £' T i ;uauadolanaa ;uapial xaldwo) 6uinil +SS SIM UBPJV V s 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 8 V paCad ay; jo;uawdolanap jaLWnj buunp pajlnbai se suopeoylpow 'oulw o; aoa[gns aie pue a6eas sly; le opewayos s6ulMeJp IIV :310N ZZOZ ' T £' T Ln ;uauadolanaa ;uapial xaldwo) 6uinil +SS SIM UBPJV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • o 0 oN� 0 0 o • Lu • o 0 LU ooY L < 0 o (I U LL w 0 0 0 o � 0• o00 O O • 0 • O • O 0 O O • O • • O O O O • O = •O KE O o 0 z • O O 0 0 0 a 0 0 LL N 4 N J a F m s 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 8 V paCad ay; jo;uawdolanap jaLWnj buunp pajlnbai se suoRe�ylpow'oulw o; ".fgns we pue a6eas sly; le DI]ewDgDS s6ulMeJp IIV :310N ZZOZ. T £. T ;uauadolanad ;uapial xa�dwo� 6uini� +SS Sim uapjv *'i Attachment C North Heights Church Apartments Proposed Project Presented — Market Rate Standard Apartments (not age restricted senior living) 7/29/2021 Neighborhood Meeting — Public Comments Comment Card #1: o "1 do not want to see this. There is plenty of development about to happen at TCAAP and the traffic flow + noise from Hwy 10 and deforestation is about to be a nightmare in this area. I am not convinced that this will be anything other than low income with greedy Ramsey County in the mix. Wait a few years when this property degrades and people see the problems with living here! Also Hwy 96 is dangerous as -is at these intersections and adding these residents won't help! The last thing I want is more danger or some terrible Idea like a round -about. Another signal would see equal if not great accident rates to Lexington's Hwy 96 intersection. NO THANK YOU! Will not support. Also, WE DO NOT WANT Public Transit in this area!" • Comment Card #2: o "1 do not know why I was not notified of this meeting when I would be directly affected by this (Colleen Ct). Residents across the highway were notified. So this public meeting seems to be directed at those that may be less affected. TCAP seems like enough development. Quality of life, property values, crime levels —very concerned about how this would be affect by this apartment complex." • Comment Card #3: o "No apartments — would prefer townhomes. Traffic issues!" • Developer's anecdotal summary/interpretation of verbal feedback received is outlined below. These are not direct and/or written quotes. These notes may unintentionally include errors or interpretations by the developer that are different than what was intended by the person(s) verbalizing comments. o Traffic ■ There are concerns about apartment residents utilizing/going-through the church parking lot to enter/exit on the east side of the church site —to Snelling. This was a major and consistent concern. ■ Market apartments, w/kids, will result in extra traffic to Royal Park; and the current infrastructure (pedestrian connections, park equipment, park vehicular parking) doesn't have capacity to handle and isn't safe. This was a major and consistent concern. ■ Will result in extra traffic through neighborhood to the east (rather than using Hwy 96); and the current infrastructure doesn't have capacity to handle. This would be for apt residents trying to go towards St. Paul/694 E. Additionally, the current condition of this infrastructure is a concern. This was a major and consistent concern. ■ There are existing concerns about traffic along old Highway 10; and that this project won't help and could potentially have a negative effect. Additionally, the condition of nearby road infrastructure is a concern. o Sound ■ This site may not work for apts due to the noise from the adjacent Highways. ■ A sound wall will be constructed along Highway 10 in the future; residents of the apartment will not desire the new wall. ■ Noise along Old Highway 10 a major concern currently. ■ What sound mitigation will occur for this apartment? o This project will decrease the value of all the homes in the neighborhood to the east. o Why doesn't the developer construction senior living age restricted apartments —rather than standard market apartments that will have families with kids? o Why not construct condos? o Why not construct town homes? o What is the current zoning? o No low-income housing desired. NOTE: the Developer generally observed about 25-30 residents in attendance Attachment D 1700 Highway 96 Site Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for Trident by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2021-063) June 22, 2021 1700 Highway 96 Site Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY..........................................................................1 2. OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................2 3. METHODS.............................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................................... 2 4. RESULTS................................................................................................................................ 3 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information ........................................... 3 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations......................................................................... 4 4.3 Other Areas........................................................................................................................ 6 4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination .................................... 6 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION.............................................................................. 7 FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Public Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset APPENDICES A. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota B. Wetland Delineation Data Forms C. Precipitation Information D. Reference Photos 1700 Highway 96 Site Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report 1. WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY • The 41.2-acre 1700 Highway 96 Site was inspected on May 5, 2021 for the presence and extent of wetland. • The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map showed eleven wetlands mapped within the site boundaries. • The soil survey showed Bluffton loam (Hydric) and Dundas fine sandy loam (Predominantly Hydric) as the Hydric Soil types mapped on the site. • The DNR Public Waters Inventory showed Round Lake (MN DNR Public Water 62-70 P) approximately 470 feet west of the site. • The National Hydrography Dataset showed one Lake/Pond corresponding with Round Lake, and one Lake/Pond within 1000 feet east of the site. • Eleven wetlands delineated within the site boundaries are summarized in Section 4.2 of this report. 1700 Highway 96 Site 2. OVERVIEW Wetland Delineation Report The 41.2-acre 1700 Highway 96 Site was inspected on May 5, 2021 for the presence and extent of wetland. The property was located in Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, Arden Hills, Ramsey County, Minnesota. The site was situated south of Ramsey County Highway 96, east of Minnesota Highway 10 Figure 1). The site boundaries corresponded to Ramsey County PID# 213023110008 and the following address: 1700 Highway 96, Arden Hills MN. The 1700 Highway 96 Site consisted of buildings associated with the North Heights Church and parking lots with woodland and meadow on the fringes of the property. The topography of the site sloped from an elevation of 938 ft MSL on the central portion of the site down to a low of 900 ft MSL on the western portion. Surrounding land use consisted of single-family residential, commercial development and recreational lakes. Eleven wetlands were delineated within the site boundaries. The delineated wetland boundaries and existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation concurrence and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) for Wetlands 141 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 3. METHODS 3.1 Wetland Delineation Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper -most extent of wetland that met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland -upland boundaries were marked with pin flags that were located by Kjolhaug Environmental Services using Trimble R1 Receiver GNSS GPS units. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland - upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted) using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources 1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report Conservation Service (MRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 7, 2010). Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric (33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non-Hydric (less than one percent hydric components). Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2017 National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2017. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.3, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH). 4. RESULTS 4.1 Review of NWI, Soils, Public Waters and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) showed eight wetlands mapped within the site boundaries (Figure 3). The Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2015) showed Bluffton loam (Hydric) and Dundas fine sandy loam (Predominantly Hydric) as the Hydric Soil types mapped on the site. Soil types mapped on the property are listed below in Table 2 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. Table 2. Soil types mapped on the 1700 Highway 96 Site % Of % Symbol Soil Name Acres Are Hydri Hydric Category a c Hayden fine sandy loam, 6 to 12 Predominantly Non- 132C percent slopes 25.20 61.2 5 Hydric 75 Bluffton loam 9.73 23.6 100 Hydric 123 Dundas fine sandy loam 3.94 9.6 95 Predominantly Hydric Hayden fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 Predominantly Non- 132B percent slopes 2.29 5.6 7 Hydric 1039 Urban land 0.04 0.1 0 Non-Hydric The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) showed Round Lake (MN DNR Public Water 62-70 P) approximately 470 feet west of the site (Figure 5). The National Hydr�phy Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond corresponding with Round Lake, and one Lake/Pond within 1000 feet east of the site (Figure 6). 1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report 4.2 Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated during field observations on May 5, 2021. Eleven wetlands were identified and delineated on the property based on field observations and aerial photography (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix B. The following descriptions of the wetlands and adjacent uplands reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. Herbaceous vegetation was actively growing at that time. Precipitation conditions were typical based on the Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database method and within the normal range based upon the 30-day rolling precipitation total (Appendix Q. Reference photos of delineated wetlands have been included as Appendix D. Wetland descriptions are provided below in Table 3. 4 o °° o 0 " 0 0 °° Cl 0 0 a 0 to 0 o °° o o °° o 0 p 3 a 3 ob o.6 ao0 .ti 0 p 3 p a 3 3 ciMc6 '8, C = � C4 p 0 N 'd C d N 'b p C° N..�-� 'D y0, ^-� 'D L° O .^'-i "C p f3 C4 N O N N 'd Q � Q� N O O N "d p C w N •O ❑d p .p Cc' 3 .0 .0 C Oo "03 .0 `� U .0 p 3 U •b .0 p 3 .0 p ° 3 3 0' 0' a 4o`e tl ° o 3 ti 0 3 o o 3 0 one °a,� ono a tb °ao°a on °aoo ou ooa onro a °� one ono o cq °c C O> O C,� O C O'+ p O'� p Op °> 0 yO k � C � cd i u Q N CA O N O V1 o0 O Vl 7 O O O M O O vl O O N M O O 7 O 7 O 7 7 O ° v Oq o p b « N 3 i� G Y « N � � vC°i �d chi 'O v O, Y U y v � v � � d O .�U+ .� ° � � '� a• Ca 7 > d c ° 3 0 �' •� a i k y 91 o 83 od3 :° o°"vw •° rn -o>«° b 3 ° C z o z o Ta 43 0 3 k o r o o« z o Sy o 3 o m pF � •o ox a�$ p° 0 o y p m y o'�'o'o w ° •o o .o � .o v O a �i � 3 p o�� �� o w ^ O y❑ JT C d T b '�.'d❑ G'❑d❑ T P h ti G 'dCC T 7 o N 0 cpW'pOp T •° L 'OC X p W id T L b r0. C o T •C 02 C e ❑° m c O O o ? C .� ❑O bo0',4 p ❑O �d T.G as q° �tl v7, O rj� O A L C C T.S O 0 id L �]° m3 o GOG '3 G° ^a ❑ C J •° m ° « E a? m'3 0 F' d '� `" .0 .� T y 0. a� ,S •o o T'.. O t swo U >' �o v m ' o T.° ° �` ,Cj 'o T"� p'F '>' y O •o o'o a'o C 1y o '3 0 7 A "o a v e o .o Q o° �o F 17 O 'o .o °�' ,a '� iC�d o B 'i.` m •o �°' °' 7 >., a Q rqy ^� � K S S •° S id � m L id •O o T y o.^ S 'd R 'O C X O. L4 O O c° a '° v° •o a v p° p❑ 3 'O o' m 'd m oo p T b a o �« o •0 •° ° g° 'o od •o o `°' 8 '^d o• o °' .o •o o y> .v y' 0. 6 'd v; •C a°i a o a o" o 0 0 $ .o 0 o b" $ o° u U °o ou 3 C�j m o a3„ 3d�� y U x U x U x T o �•• U � U •� T o�^o N w o z T 'o �^ U 'u°'., ° T o o^o o �z o a �5 T WG x a a a .d u,z a c b�'z 7 ��,00x b°�'z o :�,ox be✓z xo z a a z z a s a ]a a z b❑ b N y� •� b y b y •� U CS � ti •^C >.v p .do 0�0�..,,. Tom p,���!!�° y❑j°`� T'"'y^ O x ° 00 ai 'a'(� N3 �b �3 �,� o w00 o aCi N3 OrN3 «3 0CL O'o° d id bL F k .a L Pi o°i L t L 'O C Cj F F F F F F F F F F F A •o •o R •o R •o R •o R •o F •o R •o R •0 0 F O o v •o R N 3U�° 3� 3� 1700 Highway 96 Site 4.3 Other Areas Wetland Delineation Report Four ephemeral tributaries were present on the site (See Figure 2), which were all resulting from point discharge of stormwater. The ephemeral tributaries present all exhibited an eroded bed and bank. Tributaries 1-4 were flowing sluggishly at the time of the field visit, but would likely be dry during the later portions of the growing season except for immediately after rainfall events. Given the presence of a defined bed and bank, these features were determined to be non -wetland tributaries. The locations of observed culverts and drain tile inlets and outlets are shown on Figure 2. Clay drain tile was observed south of Wetland 5 that appeared to be failing based upon adjacent erosion (between Wetland 5 and the origin of Tributary 2), however flowing water was only observed above and below this section of tile. Given the presence of a defined bed and bank and the presence of adjacent culverts discharging stormwater these areas were not delineated as wetlands. Reference photos have been included as Appendix D. A graded swale dominated by reed canary grass was present on the western portion of the site draining from a culvert outlet into Wetland 9. The graded swale was dominated by reed canary grass, with adjacent steep slopes dominated by reed canary grass, smooth brome and common milkweed. This area was not delineated as a wetland because it consisted of a graded linear channel that was apparently created to convey stormwater. Reference photos have been included as Appendix D. Sample Point A was taken on the central portion of the site within a topographic depression dominated by green ash trees, gray dogwood, red -osier dogwood, Kentucky bluegrass, reed canary grass, Canada goldenrod and ground ivy. This area was not shown as a wetland on the NWI map, and was located within an area mapped as Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) on the soil survey. The soils in this area did not meet a hydric soil indicator, therefore this area was determined to be upland. Sample Point B was taken on the northeast portion of the site within a topographic depression dominated by reed canary grass and common burdock. This area was not shown as a wetland on the NWI map, and was located within an area mapped as Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) on the soil survey. This area did not contain a hydrophytic plant community and the soils did not meet a hydric soil indicator, therefore this area was determined to be upland. No other depressional areas with hydrophytic vegetation or wetland hydrology were observed on the site. No other areas were shown as wetland on the NWI map, and no other areas were mapped with hydric soil on the soil survey. 4.4 Request for Wetland Boundary and Jurisdictional Determination Appendix A of this report includes a Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota, which is submitted in request for: (1) a wetland boundary and type determination under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), and (2) delineation 1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report concurrence and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) for Wetlands 1-I I under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 5. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This wetland delineation and report were prepared in compliance with the regulatory standards in place at the time the work was performed. Site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation Completed by: Report Prepared by: Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecologist Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321 Kyle Uhler, GIS Specialist Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1353 Adam Cameron, Wetland Ecolo.ig_st Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1321 Report reviewed b : Date: June 22 2021 P Y Mark Kjolhaug, Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report FIGURES 1. Site Location 2. Existing Conditions 3. National Wetlands Inventory 4. Soil Survey 5. DNR Protected Waters Inventory 6. National Hydrography Dataset Site Boundary Figure 1 - Site Location Map I ' is N 0 1,500 1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063) I Feet Arden Hills, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated K��(('' /� TT uu� 77 ��//�rr on this figure are approximate joLJ 1_ uG FNVIRONNTF.NTAI. SFRVIGFS COMPANY and do not constitute an official survey product. �►�r Source: ESRI Streets Basemap Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2020 MNGEO Photo) N 0 300 Feet KjoLJ AuG FM1NVIRONNTF.NTAI. SFRVICFS COMPANY �►�r Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons 1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063) Arden Hills, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory N 0 400 Feet KjoLJ AuG FM1NVIRONNTF.NTAI. SFRVICFS COMPANY �►�r Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USFWS 1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063) Arden Hills, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Figure 4 - Soil Survey N 0 400 Feet KjoLJ AuG FNVIRONNTF.NTAI. SFRVICFS COMPANY �►�� Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USDA, NRCS 1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063) Arden Hills, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated on this figure are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. MOP -✓:: 31 f Sunfish (62-65 P) .�'6 ✓ �` .:y awes. ;.�: s"a - c, .,,� °"1a 9 �-.� i �'� } � 4 � .LW,���{ 'sx+s- ?■ • xY >F `S � r' Rvi����'x,C`i � AY Y• t �. •4. ti i 4 Site Boundary - - - - Public Ditch/Altered Natural Watercourse Public Watercourse Public Waters -71 Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters Inventory N 0 1,000 1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063) I I Arden Hills, Minnesota Feet Note: Boundaries indicated K��(('' /�TT uu�� 77 ��// �r' on this figure are approximate joLJ AuG FNVIRONNTF.NTAI. SFRVIGFS COMPANY and do not constitute an official survey product. �►�� Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, MN DNR ' .• �:;x ' � ! � r : axd : . \ ''.�:,klb�'-'s.•�. :?�m.P.sars; •�or . - , fir: '1, �j� -{ 1 �. n � .s'� ;�.�.�=�, ...;. �`� •• "i � � .gyp �'• �� ;, !, ? . 1 .���q'4` # .,K lei ��I/ •�S ffi:. 59 V, Site BoundaryFA r/al, :+., o Hydro Junction Artificial Path Canal/Ditch , Connector Stream/River Lake/Pond Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset -77 N 0 1,000 1700 Highway 96 Site (KES 2021-063) I I Feet Arden Hills, Minnesota Note: Boundaries indicated �(' /� T u 7 �/ r on this figure are approximate l_ joLJ 1_ uG FNVIRONNTF.NT'AI. SFRVICFS COMPANY and do not constitute an official survey product. �►�� Source: MNGEO Spatial Commons, USGS 1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX A Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota Project Name and/or Number: 1700 Highway 95 Site PART ONE: Applicant information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent's contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: North Heights Lutheran Church j Mailing Address: 1700 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN. 55112 Phone: 651-797-7800 E-mail Address: John.oldfield@nhlc.org Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): John Oldfield Dir. of Finance Mailing Address: 1700 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN. 55112 Phone: 651-797-7801 E-mail Address: John.oldfield@nhlc.org Agent Name: Adam Cameron, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Mailing Address: 2500 5hadywood Road 4130, Orono MN 55331 Phone: 952-401-8757 Ext. i#106 E-mail Address: Adam@kjolhaugenv.com PART TWO: Site Location information County: Ramsey City/Township: Arden Hills Parcel ID and/or Address: 213023110008 Legal Description (section, Township, Range): S:21 T:30N R:23W Lat/Lung (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): 41.20 If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www,mvp_usace.army,mil/Portals/57/docs/regulator /RegulatoryDocs/engform 4345 2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site information if this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Wetland delineation report submitted for panning. Project Name and/or Number: 1700 Highway 96 Site PART FEMUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view} Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation} Duration of Impact permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Size of impact, Overall Size of Aquatic Resource 3 Existing Plant Community Type(5) in Impact Area County, Major Watershed #, and Bank ServiceService Area # ofImpact Areas Iif impacts are temporary; enter the duration oft he impacts in days next to the "T". For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered `T (220)". 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses}. For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet). 3This is generallyonly applicable if you are applyingfor a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. S, otherwise enter "N/A". 4USe Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 31d Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp, 2. sRefer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420,0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature ❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre -application consultation with the Corps and LGt1 based on the information you have i provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Date; 6/'71,�s41 i hereby authorize Kjolhaug Environmental to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. ' The term "impact" as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. {.I� Fli�l Project lame and/or Number: 1700 Highway 95 Site Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District [Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that appty): ® 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 an the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non -binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be i appealed. ® Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present of 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. AJD requested for all waters on -site. 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 far Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). htt www.mv .usace,arm .mil Missions Re ulato DelineationJDGuidance.as x 1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX B Wetland Delineation Data Forms WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP1-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 4 - 6 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial (C6) Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Soils _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Geomorphic _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth (inches): hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP1-1UD 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 14 35 1 Populus tremuloides 70 Y FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum 5 13 2 Herb Stratum 1 3 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 4 (B) 70 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 It Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 75.00% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status 1 Rhamnus cathartica 20 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Lonicera tatarica 5 Y FACU Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 95 x 3 = 285 6 FACU species 5 x 4 = 20 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 100 (A) 305 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.05 10 25 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Rhamnus cathartics 5 Y FAC Prevalence index is :53.0* 2 — Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 5 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Prevalence index greater than 3.0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP1-1Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 14-19 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 19-25 10YR 411 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP1-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 1 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) X Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) _Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Soils _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2 Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP1-lWet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 20 50 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 2 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 100 x 1 = 100 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 100 (A) 100 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.00 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Carex vulpinoidea 60 Y OBL X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Typha angustifolia 40 Y OBL Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 100 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP1-1Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky sandy loam 12-20 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Sand loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP2-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil X , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. Soils were significantly disturbed by fill material, however normal circumstances were present. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth (inches): hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP2-1UD 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 6 15 1 Populus deltoides 30 Y FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum 11 28 2 Herb Stratum 1 3 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 4 (B) 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 It Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 75.00% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status 1 Rhamnus cathartica 20 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Cornus alba 15 Y FACW Total % Cover of: 3 Lonicera tatarica 10 N FACU OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 Prunus nigra 10 N FACU FACW species 15 x 2 = 30 5 FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 6 FACU species 25 x 4 = 100 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 90 (A) 280 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.11 10 55 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Arctium minus 5 Y FACU Prevalence index is :53.0* 2 — Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 5 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP2-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 3/4 100 Clay loam Fill soil 9-20 10YR 3/4 62 10YR 4/2 25 D M Clay loam Fill soil 10YR 4/3 10 10YR 4/6 3 C M Clay loam Fill soil 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) —Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? N Remarks: Soils at the sample point consisted of fill material. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP2-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 2 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 3 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP2-1Wet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 4 10 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Y FACW Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 16 40 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 2 (B) 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 80 x 1 = 80 4 FACW species 20 x 2 = 40 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 100 (A) 120 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.20 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Carex lacustris 80 Y OBL X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 — Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 80 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP2-1Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky loam 24-30 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP3-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 17 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 16 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point: SP3-11Up 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 6 15 1 Acernegundo 20 Y FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum 4 10 2 Tilia americana 10 Y FACU Herb Stratum 11 28 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 6 (B) 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 It Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 66.67% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status 1 Rhamnus cathartica 15 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 10 x 2 = 20 5 FAC species 60 x 3 = 180 6 FACU species 35 x 4 = 140 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 105 (A) 340 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.24 10 20 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Arctium minus 25 Y FACU Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Viola sororia 20 Y FAC _ Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 N FACW supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 Barbarea vulgaris 5 N FAC sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 55 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP3-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 4-21 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 21-24 10YR 411 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP3-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 3 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Soils _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 4 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP3-1Wet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 17 43 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 1 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 5 x 1= 5 4 FACW species 80 x 2 = 160 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 85 (A) 165 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.94 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Typha angustifolia 5 N OBL Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 85 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP3-1 Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-24 N2.5/ 100 Mucky sandy loam 24-30 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Sand loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP4-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 21 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 20 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP4-1UD 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 4 10 1 Tilia amedcana 20 Y FACU Sapling/Shrub Stratum 10 25 2 Herb Stratum 7 18 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 5 (B) 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 It Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 40.00% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status 1 Rhamnus cathartica 30 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Lonicera tatarica 20 Y FACU Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 6 FACU species 55 x 4 = 220 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 105 (A) 370 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.52 10 50 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status —Dominance test is >50% 1 Rhamnus cathartica 20 Y FAC Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Taraxacum officinale 10 Y FACU _ Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Arctium minus 5 N FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 _ (explain) 7 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 35 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP4-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 12-35 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 35-38 10YR 411 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP4-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 4 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 1 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP4-1Wet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 4 10 2 Herb Stratum 7 18 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 2 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartica 20 Y FAC 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 5 x 1= 5 4 FACW species 30 x 2 = 60 5 FAC species 20 x 3 = 60 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 55 (A) 125 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.27 10 20 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Carex vulpinoidea 5 N OBL Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 35 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP4-1 Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 10-30 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 30-35 10YR 411 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP5-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 20 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 19 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP5-1UD 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 20 50 2 Herb Stratum 4 10 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 6 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 33.33% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartica 80 Y FAC 2 Lonicera tatarica 20 Y FACU Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 85 x 3 = 255 6 FACU species 35 x 4 = 140 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 120 (A) 395 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.29 10 100 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status —Dominance test is >50% 1 Arctium minus 5 Y FACU Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Thalictrum dioicum 5 Y FACU _ Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Populus tremuloides 5 Y FAC supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 Ribes cynosbati 5 Y FACU sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 _ (explain) 7 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 20 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP5-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 12-32 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 32-36 10YR 411 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP5-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 5 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Soils _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 6 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 4 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP5-lWet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1 3 2 Herb Stratum 6 15 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 3 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartica 5 Y FAC 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 10 x 1 = 10 4 FACW species 20 x 2 = 40 5 FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 35 (A) 65 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.86 10 5 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FACW X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Carex vulpinoidea 10 Y OBL Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 30 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP5-1Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky loam 4-10 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 10-24 10YR 411 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP6-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 14 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 13 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP6-1Up 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 14 35 2 Herb Stratum 9 23 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 5 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 40.00% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status 1 Rhamnus cathartica 50 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Lonicera tatarica 20 Y FACU Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 5 x 2 = 10 5 FAC species 65 x 3 = 195 6 FACU species 46 x 4 = 184 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 116 (A) 389 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.35 10 70 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status —Dominance test is >50% 1 Poa pratensis 10 Y FACU Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Arctium minus 10 Y FACU _ Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Y FAC supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 Galium aparine 6 N FACU sheet) 5 Geum canadense 5 N FAC —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 Solidago gigantea 5 N FACW (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 46 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP6-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-11 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 11-18 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 18-24 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP6-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 6 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Soils _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 6 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 4 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point: SP6-1Wet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 8 20 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 1 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 40 x 2 = 80 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 40 (A) 80 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Solidago gigantea 5 N FACW Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Pilea pumila 5 N FACW supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 40 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP6-1 Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 8-24 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Loamy sand 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) X Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP7-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil X , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. Soils were significantly disturbed by fill material, however normal circumstances were present. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth (inches): hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP7-1UD 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 3 8 2 Herb Stratum 7 18 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 4 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 50.00% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status 1 Cornus racemosa 10 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Salix petiolaris 5 Y FACW Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 5 x 2 = 10 5 FAC species 10 x 3 = 30 6 FACU species 35 x 4 = 140 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 50 (A) 180 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.60 10 15 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status test is >50% 1 Trifolium pratense 15 Y FACU —Dominance index is :53.0* 2 Solidago canadensis 15 Y FACU —Prevalence Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Taraxacum officinale 5 N FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 35 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP7-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/4 100 Sandy loam Fill soil, restrictive layer 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? N Remarks: Soils at the sample point consisted of fill material. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP7-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 7 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP7-lWet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 3 8 2 Herb Stratum 8 20 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 3 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix nigra 15 Y OBL 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 55 x 1 = 55 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 55 (A) 55 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.00 10 15 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Carex vulpinoidea 20 Y OBL X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Typha angustifolia 20 Y OBL Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 40 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP7-1 Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 4/2 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Sandy loam *Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) X Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP8-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit NamoBluffton loam (Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 28 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 26 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP8-1UD 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 3 8 1 Populus tremuloides 10 Y FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Acernegundo 5 Y FAC Herb Stratum 16 40 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 4 (B) 15 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 50.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 15 x 3 = 45 6 FACU species 80 x 4 = 320 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 95 (A) 365 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.84 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status —Dominance test is >50% 1 So/idago canadensis 50 Y FACU index is :53.0* 2 Arctium minus 20 Y FACU —Prevalence Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Glechoma hederacea 10 N FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 80 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP8-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 10-38 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA X Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: Assumed depleted layer at some depth, therefore the Thick Dark Surface (Al2) indicator applies. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP8-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 8 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 14 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 13 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP8-1Wet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 7 18 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 2 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 15 x 1 = 15 4 FACW species 20 x 2 = 40 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 35 (A) 55 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.57 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Typha angustifolia 15 Y OBL Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Solidago gigantea 5 N FACW supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 35 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP8-1 Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 2/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam *Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) X Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP9-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth (inches): hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Sampling Point: SP9-1Up 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 17 43 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 2 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 0.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 65 x 4 = 260 7 UPL species 20 x 5 = 100 8 Column totals 85 (A) 360 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.24 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status —Dominance test is >50% 1 Solidago canadensis 60 Y FACU index is :53.0* 2 Securigera varia 20 Y UPL —Prevalence Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Poa pratensis 5 N FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 85 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP9-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 Clay loam 10-17 10YR 2/1 30 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay loam 10YR 4/2 60 Clay loam Restrictive layer 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA X Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Rocky Depth (inches): 17 Hydric soil present? N Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP9-1Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 9 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP9-1Wet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 10 25 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 1 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 50 x 1 = 50 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 50 (A) 50 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.00 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Typha angustifolia 50 Y OBL X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 — Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 50 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP9-1 Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam Restrictive layer 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA X Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Rocky Depth (inches): 12 Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: Assumed depleted layer at some depth, therefore the Thick Dark Surface (Al2) indicator applies. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP10-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 19 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 18 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP10-1UD 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 2 5 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Y FACW Sapling/Shrub Stratum 12 30 2 Herb Stratum 5 13 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 8 (B) 10 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 37.50% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status 1 Lonicera tatarica 30 Y FACU Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Rhamnus cathartica 30 Y FAC Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 10 x 2 = 20 5 FAC species 35 x 3 = 105 6 FACU species 45 x 4 = 180 7 UPL species 5 x 5 = 25 8 Column totals 95 (A) 330 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.47 10 60 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status —Dominance test is >50% 1 Geum canadense 5 Y FAC index is :53.0* 2 Ribes cynosbati 5 Y UPL —Prevalence Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Poa pratensis 5 Y FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 Cirsium arvense 5 Y FACU sheet) 5 Taraxacum officinale 5 Y FACU —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 _ (explain) 7 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 25 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP10-1 Up Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-15 10YR 3/4 100 Clay loam 15-21 10YR 3/4 60 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay loam 10YR 4/2 30 D M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? N Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP10-1 Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 10 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP10-1Wet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 6 15 2 Herb Stratum 12 30 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 3 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status 1 Salix nigra 30 Y OBL Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 45 x 1 = 45 4 FACW species 35 x 2 = 70 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 10 x 5 = 50 8 Column totals 90 (A) 165 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.83 10 30 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Typha angustifolia 15 Y OBL Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Bromus inermis 10 N UPL supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 Onoclea sensibilis 5 N FACW sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 _ (explain) 7 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 60 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP10-1 Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-11 10YR 2/1 100 Mucky loam 11-19 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) X Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP11-1 Up Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Linear Slope (%): 3 - 5 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) —Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 18 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 16 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? N Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP11-1UD 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 7 18 1 Populus tremuloides 35 Y FAC Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 8 20 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 4 (B) 35 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 25.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 35 x 3 = 105 6 FACU species 30 x 4 = 120 7 UPL species 10 x 5 = 50 8 Column totals 75 (A) 275 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.67 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status —Dominance test is >50% 1 Arctium minus 20 Y FACU Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Phalaris arundinacea 10 Y UPL _ Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Taraxacum officinale 10 Y FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 40 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP11-11-11D Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-20 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 20-25 10YR 4/2 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP11-1 Wet Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Hydric soil present? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Wetland 11 Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 8 wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 6 hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP11-1Wet 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 2 5 2 Herb Stratum 14 35 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 3 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 100.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Salix nigra 10 Y OBL 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 80 x 1 = 80 4 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 80 (A) 80 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.00 10 10 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Calamagrostis canadensis 50 Y OBL X Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Typha angustifolia 20 Y OBL Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 sheet) 5 —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 (explain) 7 _ 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 70 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP11-1Wet Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-19 10YR 2/1 100 Loam 19-24 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP-A Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil X , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. Soils at the sample location were significantly disturbed by fill material, however normal circumstances were present. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth (inches): hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP-A 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 2 5 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Y FACW Sapling/Shrub Stratum 7 18 2 Herb Stratum 11 29 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 7 (B) 10 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 57.14% (A/B) Stratum /o Cover Species Status 1 Cornus alba 25 Y FACW Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Cornus racemosa 10 Y FAC Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 45 x 2 = 90 5 FAC species 10 x 3 = 30 6 FACU species 47 x 4 = 188 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 102 (A) 308 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.02 10 35 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status X Dominance test is >50% 1 Poa pratensis 25 Y FACU Prevalence index is <_3.0* 2 Phalaris arundinacea 10 Y FACW _ Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Solidago canadensis 10 Y FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 Glechoma hederacea 10 Y FACU sheet) 5 Trifolium pratense 2 N FACU —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 _ (explain) 7 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 57 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Prevalence index greater than 3.0 US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-A Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 Sandy loam Fill soils 4-18 10YR 6/4 96 10YR 4/6 2 C M Sand loam Fill soils 10YR 4/2 2 D M Sandy loam Restrictive layer 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Gravel Depth (inches): 18 Hydric soil present? N Remarks: Soils at the sample location consisted of fill material. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: 1700 Highway 96 Site City/County: Arden Hills/Ramsey Sampling Date:5/5/2021 Applicant/Owner: See Joint Application Form State: MN Sampling Point SP-B Investigator(s): A. Cameron Section, Township, Range: S:21 T:30N R:23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 - 2 Lat.: - Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Nam( Hayden fine sandy loam (Predominantly Non-Hydric) NWI Classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Yes (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation soil X , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "normal Are vegetation soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? circumstances" present? Yes (If needed, explain any answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Hydric soil present? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y If yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from Gridded Database Method was typical. 30-day precipitation rolling total within normal range. Soils at the sample location were significantly disturbed by fill material, however normal circumstances were present. HYDROLOGY Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water-Stained Leaves (69) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (B13) _Drainage Patterns (1310) _Saturation (A3) _Marl Deposits (1315) _Moss Trim Lines (1316) —Water Marks (B1) —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Rhizospheres on _Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Living Roots (C3) —Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ (C9) Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled or Stressed Plants (D1) —Iron Inundation Visible on Aerial _Soils (C6) _Stunted X Geomorphic Position (D2) —Imagery (137) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Sparsely Vegetated Concave _Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface (68) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Indicators of Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth (inches): hydrology (includes capillary fringe) present? Y Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Samplinq Point: SP-B 50/20 Thresholds Tree Stratum Plot Size ( 30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator 20% 50% % Cover Species Status Tree Stratum 0 0 1 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 0 0 2 Herb Stratum 8 20 3 Woody Vine Stratum 0 0 4 5 Dominance Test Worksheet 6 Number of Dominant 7 Species that are OBL, 8 FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 9 Total Number of 10 Dominant Species Across 2 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, Sapling/Shrub Plot Size ( 15 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator FACW, or FAC: 50.00% (A/B) Stratum % Cover Species Status 1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 Total % Cover of: 3 OBL species 0 x 1= 0 4 FACW species 15 x 2 = 30 5 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 6 FACU species 24 x 4 = 96 7 UPL species 0 x 5= 0 8 Column totals 39 (A) 126 (B) 9 Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.23 10 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Herb Stratum Plot Size ( 5 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator _ Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation % Cover Species Status test is >50% 1 Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW —Dominance index is :53.0* 2 Arctium minus 15 Y FACU —Prevalence Morphological adaptations* (provide 3 Cirsium arvense 3 N FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 4 Cirsium vulgare 3 N FACU sheet) 5 Taraxacum officinale 3 N FACU —separate Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 6 _ (explain) 7 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 8 present, unless disturbed or problematic 9 10 Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 11 Tree - Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter 12 at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 13 14 Sapling/shrub - Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and 15 greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 39 = Total Cover Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody Vine Plot Size (30 ft Radius ) Absolute Dominant Indicator Stratum % Cover Species Status Woody vines - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in 1 height. 2 3 4 Hydrophytic 5 vegetation 0 = Total Cover present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region SOIL Sampling Point: SP-B Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (Inches) Matrix Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type` Loci* Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/2 100 Loam 10-24 10YR 4/2 79 10YR 4/6 1 C M Sand loam 10YR 3/2 20 Sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains "Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: _ Histosol (Al) Polyvalue Below Surface _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B _Histic Epipedon (A2) (S8) (LRR R, MLRA _Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) —Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) _Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _(LRR R, MLRA 149E _Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L _Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Mucky Mineral Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) _Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1_(F1) (LRR K, L) _Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) —Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) —Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) _Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) _Sandy Redox (S5) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Red Parent Material (F21) —Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Redox Depressions (F8) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA —Other (Explain in Remarks) _ 149B) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric soil present? N Remarks: Soils at the sample location consisted of fill material. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region 1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX C Precipitation Information 1700 Highway 96 Site, Arden Hills MN: Precipitation Summary Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group Monthly Totals: 2021 Target: T30 R23 S21 mon year cc tttN rrW Jan 2021 62 30N 23W Feb 2021 62 30N 23w Mar 2021 62 30N 23w Apr 2021 62 30N 23w May 2021 62 30N 23w (latitude: 45.07190 longitude: 93.17785) ss nnnn 00000000 pre (inches) 33 SWCD .67 33 SWCD .43 15 SWCD 3.51 15 SWCD 2.87 23 BYRG 3.07 March/April/May Daily Records Date Precip. Date Precip. Date Precip. Mar 1, 2021 0 Apr 1, 2021 0 May 1, 2021 0 Mar 2, 2021 0 Apr 2, 2021 0 May 2, 2021 0 Mar 3, 2021 0 Apr 3, 2021 0 May 3, 2021 .01 Mar 4, 2021 0 Apr 4, 2021 0 May 4, 2021 0 Mar 5, 2021 0 Apr 5, 2021 0 May 5, 2021 0 Site Visit Mar 6, 2021 0 Apr 6, 2021 .50 May 6, 2021 T Mar 7, 2021 0 Apr 7, 2021 .38 May 7, 2021 0 Mar 8, 2021 0 Apr 8, 2021 .09 May 8, 2021 0 Mar 9, 2021 0 Apr 9, 2021 .40 May 9, 2021 0 Mar 10, 2021 .19 Apr 10, 2021 .12 May 10, 2021 0 Mar 11, 2021 .84 Apr 11, 2021 0 May 11, 2021 0 Mar 12, 2021 0 Apr 12, 2021 0 May 12, 2021 0 Mar 13, 2021 0 Apr 13, 2021 .15 May 13, 2021 0 Mar 14, 2021 0 Apr 14, 2021 .15 May 14, 2021 0 Mar 15, 2021 0 Apr 15, 2021 .03 May 15, 2021 T Mar 16, 2021 .30 Apr 16, 2021 0 May 16, 2021 0 Mar 17, 2021 .06 Apr 17, 2021 0 May 17, 2021 0 Mar 18, 2021 0 Apr 18, 2021 0 May 18, 2021 .08 Mar 19, 2021 0 Apr 19, 2021 .05 May 19, 2021 0 Mar 20, 2021 0 Apr 20, 2021 0 May 20, 2021 1.00 Mar 21, 2021 0 Apr 21, 2021 0 May 21, 2021 .67 Mar 22, 2021 .02 Apr 22, 2021 0 May 22, 2021 .07 Mar 23, 2021 .04 Apr 23, 2021 .02 May 23, 2021 0 Mar 24, 2021 1.50 Apr 24, 2021 .10 May 24, 2021 .08 Mar 25, 2021 .27 Apr 25, 2021 0 May 25, 2021 .29 Mar 26, 2021 0 Apr 26, 2021 .36 May 26, 2021 0 Mar 27, 2021 0 Apr 27, 2021 .02 May 27, 2021 .01 Mar 28, 2021 .29 Apr 28, 2021 .50 May 28, 2021 .86 Mar 29, 2021 0 Apr 29, 2021 0 May 29, 2021 0 Mar 30, 2021 0 Apr 30, 2021 0 May 30, 2021 0 Mar 31, 2021 0 May 31, 2021 T 1981-2010 Summary Statistics Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec WARM ANN WA 30% 0.50 0.43 1.30 2.00 2.90 3.34 2.84 3.66 2.21 1.43 0.96 0.60 18.67 30.78 27.93 70% 1.09 0.99 1.94 3.24 4.27 5.49 5.16 5.17 4.06 3.82 2.11 1.27 22.77 35.26 36.13 mean 0.85 0.78 1.82 2.84 3.73 4.43 4.40 4.27 3.51 2.70 1.74 1.16 20.35 32.24 32.06 r N r CD N N u Z • C — O 2 � � 'O O � C C- 0 Q U O EMA — U > s = in 0 0 Il- CD in I- co N (seg3ui) uoilelidi3ejd moi Amuow pue Area r N O (M Ln N LL ) r N M Q V d Q T Q L Q T s c 0 E C 6/8/2021 Precipitation Documentation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Minnesota State Climatology Office State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources home I current conditions I journal I past data I summaries I agriculture I other sites about us 11 Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Ramsey township number: 30N township name: unnamed range number: 23W nearest community: New Brighton section number: 21 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 Score using 1981-2010 normal period first prior second third prior values are in inches month: prior month: month: A'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value April March February derived from radar -based estimates. 2021 2021 2021 estimated precipitation total for this location: 2.89R 2.49R 0.54R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 2.00 1.30 0.43 there is a 30% chance this location will have more 3.24 1.94 0.99 than: type of month: dry normal wet normal wet normal 3 monthly score 6 2* 3= 6 1* 2= 2 multi -month score: 14 (Normal) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) Other Resources: ■ retrieve daily precipitation data ■ view radar -based precipitation estimates ■ view weekly precipitation maps ■ Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) https://cl imateapps.dnr.state. mn. us/gridded_data/preci p/wetland/worksheet. asp?passXutm83=486000&passYutm83=4990953&passcou nty=Ramsey&... 1 /1 1700 Highway 96 Site Wetland Delineation Report APPENDIX D Reference Photos N I . 'kI MN s S . kA 1 ��r�l T}°�� ` \ •; c - _ � '� '.t '�' ,rid ..-, - �g`', s�;S`f it ,•� r. . 1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos May 5, 2021 Wetland 4 Reference Photo (Facing Southwest) Page 2of9 1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos May 5, 2021 Wetland 5 Reference Photo (Facing South May 5, 2021 Wetland 6 Reference Photo (Facing North) w T C . OWN V.asw r. ���� t .P b Fy ��',•�� ^d�'��`.sy; Il �d � �''qY. :y •� t. F� RAJ :� �'- -,�i;_ . �yF�`;.,4r •r Page 3 of 9 1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos � k- May 5, 2021 Wetland 7 Reference Photo (Facing Northwest May 5, 2021 Wetland B Reference Photo (Facing North Page 4 of 9 1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos May 5, 2021 Wetland 10 Reference Photo (Facing Northwest) .rr nCprf; ryS • J• �YIV V. Fn 1 t �;4 � �_ !� � n _ -1 °� � 1� - gyp¢ r: �i�k.' � 3 . } r3r ?t t •. ^� r�^. � �� .� �A,•, ]e � �` . is"t r€4 _ rs' s Sri r ,�. � } �y I fey p r�ti`��� Page 5 of 9 1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos Mav 5, 2O21 Sample Point B Reterence Photo (Facing E Page 6 of 9 1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos May 5, ZOZ'I Tributary 3 Reference Photo (Facing Wes •i f �' � 5 , �h y+il t � k' 'mot I • � .. I _F l 1�*�r� , , f �` 1 �F �•3iT � �h' TT■ - 1i• - Y J r.r �•-� "* ' �•-•��' 7 + �_ Page 7 of 9 1700 highway 96 Site - Wetland Delineation Report - Reference Photos May 5, 2021 Tile Discharge — Tributary 1 Origin (Facing North) Page 8 of 9 Attachment E -ARZEN HILLS Approved: April 10, 2017 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COM SSION MARCH 20, 2017 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council Work Session at 5:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung and Steve Scott Absent: None Also present: City Administrator William Joynes, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson, Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka, Senior Planner Matthew Bachler, Interim City Planner Eric Zweber, Deputy Clerk Jolene Trauba, Public Works Superintendent Jeff Frid, Grand Real Estate Advisors Developer Judd Fenlon, Lyngblomsten Representative Patricia Montgomery, Wold Architects and Engineers Tuann Johnson and Rick Moore, North Heights Church President John Oldfield and Planning Commissioner Steve Jones 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERAN AND LYNGBLOMSTEN CONCEPT REVIEW Interim City Planner Eric Zweber discussed the site plan and a number of slides depicting the proposed project. The project would consist of independent living, assisted living and memory/enhanced/skilled nursing care. He noted the trail where fire equipment could be driven as well as other trails and parking. Lyngblomsten would most likely request a rezoning to R-4. Interim City Planner Zweber reviewed the table of R-4 standards versus the proposed project. The Lyngblomsten plans would require six different requests: Comprehensive Plan Amendment from P/I — Public & Institutional to HDR - High Density Residential, Rezoning from R-1- Single Family Residential District to R-4 — Multiple Dwelling District, Conditional Use Permit for a Nursing Home and Assisted Living Use, Planned Unit Development for Performance Standards Increases (at least height and density), Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MARCH 20, 2017 2 Grand Real Estate Advisors Developer Judd Fenlon noted Lyngblomsten is proposing using an approximate 6.5 acre parcel with 200 total units. They are looking toward a Spring 2018 opening. Lyngblomsten Representative Patricia Montgomery gave a verbal presentation on Lyngblomsten's history, services offered and anticipation of needs in the Arden Hills area. North Heights Church President John Oldfield stated that a goal of the church has been to provide long term housing and assisted living for their members. They feel the Lyngblomsten proposal will meet those needs. Mr. Fenlon discussed a market analysis that was done of Arden Hills and surrounding area, supporting the need for senior housing. Wold Architects and Engineers' Rick Moore spoke about maintaining the natural aspects of the site and being in a location adjacent to the church for potential shared activities. The west side of the property is the flattest and has the least trees so that is where they propose to build the project. Tuann Johnson noted the color scheme of the structure. She mentioned they would like to build a trail connecting to Royal Hills Park. Mr. Fenlon stated that he feels they can be competive in price points and packages they offer compared to the rest of the market. Mayor Grant asked if the property was ever zoned multi -family. Councilmember McClung stated that nothing other than a hostel has ever been proposed as residential for the property. Councilmember McClung questioned the demand analysis, wondering if the analysis took any of the properties currently being developed into account and if it took any of the TCAAP development into consideration. Mr. Fenlon replied that any properties currently built or being built were a part of the demand analysis, but possible TCAAP units were not. Councilmember Holmes stated that her biggest concern is the traffic pattern going out to Snelling Avenue and Highway 96. Councilmember McClung concurred. Councilmember Holden wondered what the active membership at North Heights is currently. Mr. Oldfield stated that membership is down about 50 per -cent from the previous high. Councilmember Holden then asked how much traffic would be produced by this development. Mr. Fenlon stated that they are estimating 480 trips per day. Councilmember Holden said she thinks 65 feet for the building height is way too high. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MARCH 20, 2017 3 Mayor Grant reiterated the number of senior living units coming into the area and stated that Lyngblomsten's risk is not the Council's concern. Councilmember McClung also expressed concern about the height of the current proposed structure. Councilmember Scott is also concerned about the traffic patterns, and pedestrian traffic going to and from the park. Mayor Grant agreed that traffic, changing zoning, and building height are all concerns. Councilmember Holmes said she didn't have a problem with the zoning, but felt it may be too isolated from the rest of the community. Councilmember McClung inquired if they had considered placing the building on the northwestern section of the property. Mr. Moore responded that they had considered it, but that placing it there would fill up most of the area and would require alteration to the existing parking lot. Councilmember McClung stated that he cannot support the current proposal. He has traffic concerns, zoning concerns and massing/height concerns. Councilmember Holden felt the use of land that is currently idle is good and as well as the connection to the TCAAP area and parks. She said she would support rezoning in this situation. B. HIGHER EDUCATION MORATORIUM STUDY Interim City Planner Zweber stated that they would be discussing the conversations that took place with the two Universities (Bethel and Northwestern) concerning existing campus master plans and how they come into play with acquiring sites off campus. They would also start the process of looking at commercial and industrial zones to see if they are meeting the needs of the community. Both colleges are hoping to increase enrollment and continue to look for off -site facilites. Both schools can save approximately 50% of costs by renovating an existing building versus building new. Interim City Planner Zweber also explained that the University of Minnesota has abandoned the 3-2 program. Those students would spend the first 3 years at Bethel or Northwestern, then transfer to the U of M for 2 years and once completed they would have both a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Arts degree. Because that program no longer exists and in an effort to keep those existing students, both colleges are looking for lab and classroom space necessary for S.T.E M. students. Mayor Grant asked if staff had looked at the parameters within the Conditional Use Permit under which Bethel operates and if the student levels they are trying to reach are within those limits. Attachment F ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 21, 2018 2 Councilmember Holden suggested a demonstration during a City Council meeting showing the viewers a demonstration of how to use community crime mapping. It was decided that staff should schedule a quarterly update from the Sheriff's Office during a regular City Council meeting. Discussion ensued regarding the officers stopping to visit with residents as they are making their rounds through the neighborhoods, and the possibility of cameras in City Parks. B. Concept Plan Review — Lyngblomsten and North Heights Lutheran Church City Planner Matthew Bachler noted the Council had a previous Concept Plan Review with Lyngblomsten and North Heights Church at the March 20, 2017 Work Session. At that time there were concerns about building height, density, traffic and the required rezoning of the property. Updates have been made to the plan and have been brought forward to review. Grand Real Estate Advisors' Judd Fenlon gave a presentation highlighting changes they have made to the proposed development area. He mentioned that time was spent site planning and investigating potentially changing the location to the north side of the property but there was too much wetland, so they have continued to focus on the south side of the church. They are proposing to purchase approximately seven acres of land from North Heights Lutheran Church and build a continuum of care campus comprised of approximately 100 independent living units, 50 assisted living units and a 50 unit nursing home. They are motivated to preserve as many of the site amenities as possible including mature trees and the wetland, and provide connectivity via walking paths and sidewalks surrounding the site and to the park. Councilmember Holden asked if they have considered sharing part of the parking lot with the church rather than build an entirely new lot. Mr. Fenlon replied that more discussion and study will be needed to see how frequently events are held that fill up the current lot and how difficult it would be to share the lot. Wold Architects and Engineers' Rick Moore discussed the rendering of the building, which included lowering the height of the building which will now be from 47 to 52 feet, noting the highest part of the building would be the entrance. He also showed street view drawings with perspectives from Highway 10 and Snelling Avenue. Building colors and materials have not been been finalized. Mr. Fenlon noted that a demand study was done in the primary market area and it was determined that there is a need for 534 senior housing units now and the need will grow to 650 by 2021. A traffic study was also commissioned showing there would be approximately 660 total daily trips generated by the facility, 35 trips during the morning peak time and 55 during the evening peak time. Councilmember Holden stated that she isn't worried about the amount of traffic that could be generated by the facility. Councilmember Steve Scott asked if the exits would be controlled intersections. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 21, 2018 3 Discussion ensued regarding the possible need for controlled intersections at the parking lot exits and a possible separate entrance to the housing area. City Planner Bachler confirmed that the property would have to be built as a PUD, and it is currently zoned R-1. Councilmember Dave McClung stated he has all of the same concerns as he did with the previous plan; traffic, density and height. Councilmember Holden felt it would be a good use of the land, that traffic is not an issue, and the project would be an asset to the community. Councilmember Scott said he was not opposed to the project, but did have concerns about traffic. Mayor Grant noted the building height being lowered mitigates a previous concern of his, and he was not opposed to the project. He felt the traffic issues are probably resolveable. He encouraged the Lyngblomsten team to contact Councilmember Fran Holmes for her opinion on the project. C. Committees and Commissions — Joint Works Sessions with Council City Administrator Dave Perrault gave comments from Councilmember Holmes; she enjoys the joint work sessions and wants them to continue on an annual basis but the presentation should be limited to half an hour and only the chair should speak. After discussion, it was determined that the Council would like to continue to have a joint work session with the Planning Commission, but the other committees and commissions could work with the Council liaisons rather than come before the whole Council. D. Utility Bonding City Administrator Perrault reminded the Council that Ehler's had given bonding recommendations and the Council had requested other scenarios with varying levels of debt. Councilmember Holden said she would like to look at the capital projects again to see if there is anything they want to change before they do the bonding. She noted the amount of interest that would need to be paid on each scenario. Mayor Grant favored scenario A. Councilmember Holden said she would like to strike the $200,000 for sewer lining in 2018 and use scenario A. Councilmember Scott leaned toward scenario B with the sewer lining as is. Councilmember McClung was comfortable with scenario B. Mayor Grant suggested taking out the sewer lining and bond an amount somewhere between scenario A and B. Attachment G -ARQEN HILLS Approved: March 14, 2022 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 22, 2022 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council Work Session at 5:00 p.m. Note: On January 12, 2022 the Mayor signed a determination allowing Councilmembers to participate in City Council meetings via telephone pursuant to State Statute 13D.021 Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Steve Scott and David Radziej Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; Public Works Director/City Engineer Dave Swearingen; and City Planner Jessica Jagoe 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. North Heights Lutheran Church Concept Plan City Planner Jagoe stated Trident Development is proposing a 115 to 125 unit senior apartment development (apartments only, the proposed will not have an assisted living or memory care component) on the northwest side of the North Heights Lutheran Church property at 1700 Highway 96 West. Prior to this submission, the Applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 29, 2021 in order to garner feedback from the adjacent landowners on the proposed site development. The Applicant has included a summary of the meeting comments as part of this submission. Public comments and questions were primarily regarding traffic, access, impacts on neighborhood (i.e. property values and Royal Hills Park), and noise. City Planner Jagoe explained in 2017 and 2018, the City Council considered two Concept Plan Review applications for the development of senior living housing which would have comprised of independent, assisted, and memory care units on this same property. Both of those concept proposals had the placement of the building on the south side of the property with the primary access to the site from Snelling Avenue north of the intersection with Royal Hills Drive. At that time, the Council expressed concerns about building height, massing, traffic, and the required ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — FEBRUARY 22, 2022 2 property rezoning. Additionally, the Council provided direction that the northwest corner of the property should be considered for the development. The former Applicant evaluated this site and determined that development would not be feasible due to the presence of several large wetlands and additional construction costs. In the end, the former Developer made the decision not to move forward with a formal land use application. Staff commented further on the request and noted representatives from Trident Development were in attendance. Roger Fink, Trident Development, provided the Council with further details on the proposed senior apartment project. He discussed how the parking would be restriped and added to in order to keep the church use in compliance. He noted a pedestrian trail would meander along the west side of the building and would connect to a fire lane at the rear portion of the building. He stated the building would have an underground parking structure and commented on how the apartment traffic would not conflict with church traffic. He described the amenities that would be included within the senior apartment complex and explained that tenants of their other buildings were thoroughly enjoying the rooftop patio. He detailed the exterior building materials that would be used on the structure which included vinyl windows, powder coated balconies, brick and LP siding. He then reviewed the elevations of the building, noted the overall building height and commented on the areas of flexibility that might be requested as part of a future land use application to the City. Councilmember Holden thanked the applicant for discussing the unit height but noted the surrounding properties may be adversely impacted by the proposed building height. She asked how the proposed exterior building materials conform to the City's standards. City Planner Jagoe explained residential housing districts do not have preferred or specific exterior building material requirements. She indicated residential standards evaluate the impact to the surrounding area, such as design scale and building height. Councilmember Holden questioned how high the chapel was at North Heights. City Planner Jagoe indicated she was uncertain and recommended an official from the church that was in attendance or the applicant might be able to speak to this. Councilmember Holden inquired if the County had approved an access point onto Highway 96 for this project as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Fink stated he would be using an existing access point that was already in place for North Heights Church. He explained he had reached an agreement with the church regarding the access point and placement of a new monument sign along Highway 96. Councilmember Holden questioned if the residents within the senior apartment complex would be able to walk to North Heights to church. Mr. Fink commented this was a great suggestion and stated he would look into a pedestrian path that connects to the church. Councilmember Holden asked if some of the units could be at 80% AMI. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — FEBRUARY 22, 2022 3 Mr. Fink stated he was proposing to construct market rate senior apartments. Councilmember Holden encouraged the developer to investigate this possibility further. She indicated she had concerns about the building height. Mayor Grant requested staff comment further on how the building height was determined. City Planner Jagoe commented on how the city ordinance defines building height and how that is determined for multi -story buildings. She estimated the height would be between 38 and 42 feet. Councilmember Scott questioned if Trident would maintain ownership of the building after it was constructed. Mr. Fink reported Trident did intend to maintain ownership of this project. Councilmember Scott requested further information regarding the heating units within each unit. Mr. Fink discussed the magic pack heating units that would be installed in each apartment, noting they would be both gas and electric. Councilmember Scott asked if the developer would be pursuing any LEED certifications with this building. Mr. Fink stated he would not be seeking LEED certification with this project. Mayor Grant inquired how the applicant defined "seniors". Mr. Fink explained seniors were defined as active 55+ individuals. Councilmember Radziej requested further information on how the stormwater would be managed. Mr. Fink reported this has yet to be fully designed. He noted he has reached an agreement with the church and a stormwater pond would be created just off the property through an easement. Mayor Grant questioned how the Council felt about the building height. Councilmember Scott commented he supported the proposed building height, noting a flat roof would be unseemly. Councilmember Holden indicated she could support the building height, so long as it did not exceed 44 feet. Councilmember Holmes stated she would like to better understand what type of flexibility has been granted to other housing units in the community and those building heights compared to what is being requested from the applicant. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — FEBRUARY 22, 2022 4 Councilmember Radziej explained he supported the building height as requested. Mayor Grant requested the Council speak to the maximum floor area ratio. Councilmember Scott stated he was willing to allow the project to move forward with the understanding the minor speed bumps would have to be worked out. Mayor Grant questioned if the stormwater pond could be co -owned by the applicant in order to assist with the floor area ratio. Mr. Fink stated the boundary line was still being reviewed and survey work had to be completed. Councilmember Holden indicated she agreed with the comments made by Councilmember Scott. She suggested the property have external amenities such as a swing set because this property was nowhere near a park. She recommended the development stick to 12 units per acre, so the development does not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mayor Grant agreed with this recommendation. Mr. Fink commented he would be willing to consider more outdoor amenities. He thanked the Council for the feedback and for considering his request this evening. B. Speed Limit Update John Morast, HR Green, stated Minnesota Statute 169.14 Speed Limits, Zones; Radar regulates highway and roadway speeds in Minnesota. Subdivision 2 sets maximum speed limits on a variety of within a Municipality, such as 10 mph in alleys, 30 mph in urban districts, and 25 mph on residential roadways, if adopted by the road authority. In August 2019, the Minnesota Legislature changed the Statutes governing speed limits on city streets. The changes allow cities to establish speed on roads under the City's jurisdiction, other than the statutory limits, without conducting an engineering and traffic investigation. Any speed limit changes must be implemented in a consistent and understandable manner. "The city must erect appropriate signs to display the speed limit. A city that uses the authority under this subdivision must develop procedures to set speed limits based on the city's safety, engineering, and traffic analysis. At a minimum, the safety, engineering, and traffic analysis must consider national urban speed limit guidance and studies, local traffic crashes, and methods to effectively communicate the change to the public.". City Council has discussed speed limit changes on various roads within the City decided to implement a speed limit reduction on certain City streets from 30 MPH to 25 MPH in the spring of 2022. He reported MSA roads were eligible for a speed limit change with a few caveats. He commented further on how a speed limit change would be advertised to the public. He anticipated the speed limit change could be implemented yet this spring. Councilmember Holden asked if MSA roadways had to be posted at 35 MPH. Mr. Morast reported the City currently can post these roadways at 30 MPH. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — FEBRUARY 22, 2022 5 Councilmember Radziej questioned if Lake Johanna Boulevard could have a reduced speed limit. City Administrator Perrault commented that Lake Johanna Boulevard is a County Road and outside of our jurisdiction, but Ramsey County is studying this road. Councilmember Holmes anticipated residents would be disappointed if Lake Valentine Road and Snelling Avenue were not reduced to 25 MPH given the high level of traffic along these roadways. Mr. Morast stated there may not be a process in place at this time, but it may be able to be done in the future. He indicated more engineering would have to be done before the speeds along these roadways could be adjusted. Further discussion ensued regarding the speed limits along Lake Valentine Road and Snelling Avenue. Councilmember Holmes recommended no speeds be adjusted until all the roads in the City can be included. She feared it would be confusing if some roads, but not all roads were lowered at this time. Mr. Morast stated he can speak to several traffic engineers to see if it would be appropriate to adjust the speed limit along Snelling Avenue and Lake Valentine Road. He noted these were MSA roads and they would require further investigation. Councilmember Holden agreed the speed along Lake Valentine Road should be reduced to 25 MPH, especially because this roadway was mostly residential and went past a school. Councilmember Holmes recommended staff further investigate lowering the speed along Lake Valentine Road and Snelling Avenue and report back to the Council. Mayor Grant asked whose approval was needed to change the speed limit along these two roadways. Mr. Morast reported the speed limit for these two roadways could be changed by the City Council. He stated he could further analyze these roadways and noted the City Council could make a determination regarding these two roadways. Councilmember Scott indicated he was in favor of changing the speed limit on residential streets. He explained he was less concerned with the MSA roads, including Snelling Avenue North. Councilmember Radziej commented he was new to this discussion. He asked how long it would take Mr. Morast to investigate Lake Valentine Road and Snelling Avenue. Mr. Morast indicated he would like to speak with the City Attorney and see if enforcement would be a concern for these two roadways. He stated once that was coordinated he could get information back to City staff and the Councilmembers. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — FEBRUARY 22, 2022 6 Further discussion ensued regarding speed limit signs and if there would be confusion in the City if "unless otherwise posted" signs were erected. The Council also discussed GPS systems and how they would need to be updated if the City were to lower the residential speed limit. Councilmember Holden questioned what the next step would be in this process. She asked if residents were asking for a change in the residential speed limit. Councilmember Radziej stated he has not heard residents make this request. Councilmember Holmes believed residents were not aware that the Council was considering a change. She supported this issue going to the City Council for a public hearing. Mayor Grant agreed a public hearing should be held at a future City Council meeting. City Administrator Perrault explained staff was waiting to receive feedback from the Council at this meeting before moving this item forward. He noted staff would be putting this item in the next newsletter and would be posting information on the City's website prior to scheduling a public hearing. Mayor Grant recommended Mr. Morast take two weeks to investigate these roadways further and report back to the Council in March. The Council supported staff putting a blurb in the upcoming newsletter in order to gain feedback from the public on this topic. C. Food Truck Discussion City Administrator Perrault stated following discussion at Council work sessions, the City Council considered updates to its Food Truck Ordinance at its June 14, 2021 City Council meeting. At the meeting, Council decided to table the item to a future work session for further discussion. The proposed updates would have imposed the following: • Requiring the property owner/event host to obtain permit to host a food truck (similar to garage sales) • Limiting the number of times a residential property could host a food truck to two events per calendar year • Set an administrative penalty for violations of the ordinance ($100) City Administrator Perrault explained as the ordinance stands today, a residential property can host a food truck, but the sales are limited to those attending a private/catered event, such as, a wedding or graduation party. From an enforcement perspective, it is difficult for the City to define what is considered a "private" event versus what constitutes sales to the general public. Non- residential properties are allowed to host food trucks and make sales to the general public, for example, Mounds View High School could host a food truck and make sales to the general public. In 2021, the City issued 24 food truck licenses. Of those licenses, approximately 10 were for non- residential properties, such as, the University of Northwestern, Mounds View High School or Valentine Hills Elementary hosting a food truck. The remaining 14 licenses were residential properties hosting food trucks. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — FEBRUARY 22, 2022 7 City Administrator Perrault reported of those residential properties, 3 reported to be a private or catered event, and 11 were for ongoing neighborhood gatherings. These numbers represent information reported to the City at the time of license application and may not represent the full extent of where licensed trucks operated in the City thereafter. For example, a previously licensed truck may have been subsequently hired at a different residential or non-residential property later in the summer which did not report the event to the City, or an event could have been later cancelled by the vendor or resident, making this difficult to track. For reference, the Minnesota Department of Health licenses food trucks to ensure safe operation and food preparation standards are met. The City also licenses food trucks that operate in the City to ensure they meet City Ordinance requirements; the City also has the fire department inspect food trucks to ensure they meet minimum fire safety standards. There is no standard on regulating food trucks for Cities, some cities have little to no regulation while others have regulations similar to ours. Staff is seeking direction on what, if any, changes should be made to the existing ordinance, or if Council is comfortable with it as written. Councilmember Holden stated she would like to have a public hearing or some type of public forum at a future work session to hear from residents on both sides of the issue. Mayor Grant recommended this input be taken at a City Council meeting. Councilmember Holmes agreed this needed to be done to allow voices to be heard before the Ordinance is amended. Councilmember Scott questioned if a public hearing was the best way to work through this issue. He suggested an online survey could be considered to gather public input. Mayor Grant proposed the Council holding a separate meeting, or public forum to discuss this topic. The Council supported this recommendation and requested staff put a blurb in the upcoming newsletter regarding a future public meeting. D. Emerald Ash Borer Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated in 2016 and 2018, the City of Arden Hills treated a list of 37 trees with injected insecticide. The insecticide is 99% effective when injected into healthy Ash trees and will protect for 2 growing seasons. In 2021 the City treated 46 ash trees within public property for a total of $3,895 and will continue to treat these trees every other year as needed. On August 16, 2021 at the Council Work Session, staff brought this topic up for discussion to review the City's current adopted Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan (2012) and receive feedback from Council if revisions to the plan were desired to better correlate with actions the City is taking on ash trees. Staff took the feedback from that Work Session and updated the plan. Revisions included updates to more current information about EAB but mainly updates to the action the City is taking to respond to EAB. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen reported the intention of this discussion is to review the updated EAB Management Plan and provide an opportunity for Council feedback. Once staff has direction from Council on the plan, it will be brought forward at a regular meeting to formally adopt. Currently, the City does not directly provide assistance or programs to residents ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — FEBRUARY 22, 2022 related to diseased tree control. The City promotes Friends of the Parks and Trails Annual Tree Sale but, in 2020 and 2021, that program was suspended due to challenges from Covid and after review of their website there is no information shown for 2022. In 2021, the City contracted with Rainbow Tree Care to treat the City owned ash trees, staff inquired if they provide services at a discount to residents to which they replied they offer approximately 30% off their standard rate when partnered with a City. Staff is requesting direction from Council if there is interest in this program. Mayor Grant requested further information regarding the contractors. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen explained staff reached out to three contractors in 2021 and Rainbow Tree provided the best rate per caliper inch for the treatment of trees. Councilmember Holden questioned if the City wanted to open up this contractor to the public. Mayor Grant reported the City has always done this for Emerald Ash Borer treatments. He stated the City could have an agreement with Rainbow Tree that would allow residents to receive a 30% discount. Councilmember Scott discussed the cost the City paid to treat 46 trees in 2021. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen indicated he was not interested in offering the City's rate to residents because the City was receiving a bid rate and not a standard single tree rate that would be charged to residents. Mayor Grant suggested this item be tabled this evening and staff can bring it back at a future meeting when they can provide more information on the three vendors that were contacted in 2021 and what rates would they be willing to bring forward. E. Council Tracker City Administrator Perrault provided the Council with an update on the Council Tracker. Councilmember Holden requested the water meter situation be added to the Council Tracker. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES Councilmember Radziej stated he would be attending a meeting with Representative Moller this week. He commented he would be attending a tour of the fire department tomorrow. Councilmember Scott asked when the Council would be making a determination to return to in - person meetings. He reported the COVID numbers have fallen dramatically at this point. Mayor Grant commented on the numbers and noted another variant was out there that was now more catchy than Omicron and also more deadly. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — FEBRUARY 22, 2022 9 Councilmember Holden suggested the Council address this topic at the first Council meeting in April. Mayor Grant supported this suggestion. He recommended the Council hold the first meeting in March virtually and that the second meeting in March be canceled. Councilmember Holden requested further information regarding the City's snow emergency policy and when public works responds to snow events. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen discussed the City's snow emergency policy in further detail with the Council. He stated 2" with continuous snow or drifting triggers a snow event. Mayor Grant asked if the City had adequate funds in the tree replacement fund. He commented he would like trees replaced along Highway 96. He requested staff put together some sort of plan for this. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen stated this was the case and noted he could put together a plan. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council Work Session at 7:31 p.m. Julie Hanson City Clerk David Grant Mayor R = +, o +� E w� v M-� Q = = v ~ v O > a) o kn }' s c� 4-1 O cl a c un — O O v >LJ _ 06 Z U .CL L rr CL��s W D.O Q a rn U GC U- N J ca L 0 .O -� U •4 - C6 Q c6 L E O N cn Q-0 a) O O E m z +�-+ 0 +� cn O 'cncn > '� V E •— u ca O 0 Q ,V) O C 0 �: 0-°'�cn .(>°`�� >°CLC: 4-jo �tU00U O 4-J ' — cn ro ca . +,4-1 —O Q > C�0 � > � -0 � O 4� Q U U v) u Z �4-JCT °Cu W W ° 0 QL Q 0 -I— CL Qj 0 QL Qj 0j CL V � � CL A L O .C- Ln .C- a on i N w C C c C w M aJ O O O >- E �^ O co O co O co v O I� a) C f6 Q (6 Q (O Q X a1 dl N w v a1 Q c- Q az > o m rn v ^ ro ^ (a ^ co " v a+ CL > M v ° a) ° v v a, CU c a s o w w w - � o v >_ c v m a`) m v co v F o a Ln ° In a> v a>i v aa) v + + -° - -0 =3 -0 Ill =1 I? c Q M N O w O j O j O j N O O Q 7 Q O —4 Z 4= -I 4 u u M N N N 0 Y � .a c (U N � L o al O 5 .fl- � .°- � .°- N O Q Q Q C C a: Q r1 M Z Z lD Z O c O c O c Z O O m o � ai a7 a1 -0 E C N w \ O V Y � O 0 a) + -8 IA 3 V c-I ) w O O N ci N c v o ai p p cu m m a)o o � a) a)v Y a Ln m Ln Ill N O O `� �^ D M M CD 'D -1 m u1 N V C L Y �0 m (A H {A C. = al a1 O. r— ho i "O i Q +:3 C Q O +L'' c D v .a m � m Ii H - a Ii a V) a E E E Ear E E E E E v E E E E m E E E E E ` �. C R m > L y 2 V a 0 r-I a- J U ate-+ • i 4 aA a-J •— 'N 0 bz to Q LL O W Q� ca u O L +� a, ° J O cn ago a) u CL (3) ro -0iz q Q)� o Q N au 0 � o -�-o EE4-; a) v • � � � +-+ � CAA � — = m O c 'c- ca a) O ca L Q a> DC I U a Q r I �lofwUN T'•N wDW S1N3WJMVdrS UH N30HV ,t ~ I019S n E01 -WnS 'S "' 109E � Tl Tl'1N3MdOl3A301N30I7LL r; MMM N0"Wo 0 NVId ld3DNOJ _ I 0 z Fw :i I�I I N o = {tS Fi S Q ■ ■ Z FJ IV nS z I I i 5 ■ it ■� ■ wffi < OZ N J w[aZ�1 I 1 I 1 o a O ■ ■ I I I I°a iN.. N ■ ■ ■ LU 41 I I 1 I I 1 s 4 LL 11 il W .w I I I� iA o .. Q W ■ ■ (0 ■ m a �a i• (a ,Z 'XOilddtl 1p a ,bb '%Oilddtl a I'm WN O m _ w t i 0 Y a�. rrI ON VJ � v AGENDA ITEM — 3B --ARZEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Kerri Seemann, PTRC Member David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Hazelnut Park Ecological Restoration Plan Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $0 $2,296 - 4,331 Park Development Council Should Consider Council should consider PTRC Member, Kerri Seemann's Ecological Restoration Plan for Hazelnut Park. Background/Discussion This item was first brought to Council on December 19, 2022. Kerri presented background on what is involved with Ecological Restoration, and through discussion, Council directed Kerri to prepare a formal proposal and plan for discussion at the February 21, 2023 Work Session. Kerri Seemann will be providing a presentation to discuss the proposal as seen in Attachment A. The related cost options can be reviewed in Attachments B, C and D. Budget Impact The proposed project involves Public Works staff time to coordinate the purchase and distribution of the plants along with supplying water to the water barrel for the first year. Kerri is proposing to implement and manage the project voluntarily for up to 3-years. Option 1 cost: $4,331 Option 2 cost: $3,001 Option 3 cost: $2,296 Attachments Attachment A — Hazelnut Park Ecological Restoration Proposal Attachment B — Cost Option 1 Attachment C — Cost Option 2 Attachment D — Cost Option 3 Page 1 of 1 Attachment A Hazelnut Park Ecological Restoration Proposal Prepared for: Arden Hills City Council Prepared by: Kerri Seemann PTRC member, MN Master Naturalist volunteer Table of Contents Introduction 2 Background 2 Ecological Context 2 Site Information 5 Soil, Hydrology, Ecological Category, Ecosystem Baseline Inventory, Reference Ecosystem, Current Maintenance, Current Use 6 Goals 6 Design 7 Species Selection by Planting Zone 8 Ecological Benefit of Various Species 9 Timeline 11 Short -Term Maintenance, Long -Term Maintenance 11 What is Needed From the Public Works Department 12 Plant Sources 12 Cost Estimates 12 Information Sources 13 ATTACHMENTS: • FFs59 Southern Terrace Forest • Flower Visuals • Pricing - Option 1 • Pricing - Option 2 • Pricing - Option 3 1 Introduction In the wooded area with a vernal pond at the southern entrance to Hazelnut Park, I propose that we remove the majority of non-native species and replace them with native plants adapted to the existing conditions of the site. The primary purpose is to improve ecological function, supporting insects and the birds, bats and other animals that depend on them. Background Prior to European settlement, this area was dominated by oak savanna. There was also a mix of tallgrass prairie, marshes, and oak/ aspen woodland. In the original surveyors' notes from 1847, the area closest to what is now Hazelnut Park is described as "Sand high rolling oak barrens Soil 2nd rate." Ecological Context 432 spp of North American birds at risk of extinction. 3 billion fewer breeding birds compared to 45 years ago. Studies looking at the Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) have found that habitat loss and degradation are the most significant threats. A few years later, settlers started moving in and turned much of the oak savanna into farmland. As we can see in the middle of this aerial image from 1937, most of what is now Hazelnut Park was likely used as pasture. (That would explain the presence of smooth brome—an invasive non-native grass that was commonly used in pastures —in parts of the park.) By 1953, you can see trees and shrubs beginning to fill in. This includes the area that this proposal focuses on, where elms and cottonwoods had begun to grow at the northern end of Prior Ave. i 2 Problem Percentage of SGCN in the Subsection for Which This Is a Problem Habitat Loss in MN 81 Habitat Degradation in MN 87 Habitat Loss/Degradation Outside of MN 28 Invasive Species and Competition 32 Pollution 38 Social Tolerance/Persecution/Exploitation 21 Disease 2 Fond Source Limitations 3 Other 17 The graph shown here demonstrates how much the landscape of the eastern Metro area had changed over the course of 100 years. The oak savanna that once covered half of the area has been reduced to a tiny fraction, and the remaining patches are no longer connected (habitat fragmentation). C — Terrestrial Habitat Change Forest -Upland Deciduous (Aspen -oak) Forest -Upland Deciduous (Hardwood) Oak Savanna Prairie Grassland 0 Cropland ❑ 1890S Developed 0 1990S ■ Key Habitat Water Not only are viable habitats fragmented, they have also been invaded by 3300 species of introduced plants. 'IO °IO 7.3 0.3 18.0 6.3 50.1 2.8 9.4 0.0 13.4 30.3 31.3 0 50 100 150 200 250 Acres (in thousands) "We have allowed alien plants to replace natives all over the country. Our native animals and plants cannot adapt to this gross and completely unnatural manipulation of their environment in time to negate the consequences. Their only hope for a sustainable future is for us to intervene to right the wrongs that we have perpetrated." - D. Tallamy F Insects are critical components of nearly all terrestrial food we being eaten, insects turn plants into protein and power the growth o species — including freshwater fish and a majority of birds — that n not to mention all the creatures that eat those creatures. - B. Jarvis * 96% of terrestrial birds in North America feed their young insects and Causes of insect of those insects are caterpillars. declines * 90% of insects that eat plants can develop and reproduce ONLY on the plants with which they share an evolutionary history. "Like other species, insects are responding to what Chris Thomas, an insect ecologist at the University of York, has called "the transformation Pesticides Habitat loss Nonnative ornamentals Invasive species Security lights Roadside mortality Climate change 3 of the world": not just a changing climate but also the widespread conversion, via urbanization, agricultural intensification and so on, of natural spaces into human ones, with fewer and fewer resources "left over" for nonhuman creatures to live on. What resources remain are often contaminated. Hans de Kroon characterizes the life of many modern insects as trying to survive from one dwindling oasis to the next but with "a desert in between, and at worst it's a poisonous desert." In the United States, scientists recently found the population of monarch butterflies fell by go percent in the last 20 years, a loss of goo million individuals; the rusty -patched bumblebee, which once lived in 28 states, dropped by 87 percent over the same period." -- B. Jarvis 7_1 "Prior to its listing as endangered in 2017, the species experienced a widespread and steep decline. The exact cause of the decline is unknown, but evidence suggests a synergistic interaction between an introduced pathogen and exposure to pesticides, specifically insecticides and fungicides, which was also noted in the species assessment. The species status assessment notes that the remaining populations are exposed to several interacting stressors, including pathogens, pesticides, habitat loss and degradation, non-native and managed bees, the effects of climate change and small population biology. These stressors likely operate independently and synergistically. For example, dietary stress due to insufficient floral resources may reduce an individual's resiliency to pathogens and pesticides, exposure to insecticides can reduce resistance to disease and exposure to fungicides can increase insecticide toxicity. "Saving a species from extinction is a group effort, with partners from national conservation organizations and agencies to local communities and citizens, we can't do this alone" said Charlie Wooley, regional director for the Great Lakes Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "This is a great opportunity for those who live in the range of the rusty patched bumble bee to get involved in recovery, whether you live in a rural setting or urban areas where we're finding the species. We encourage everyone to help by learning more about this interesting bee and providing flowers for pollen and nectar. Together we can make sure this important native pollinator doesn't slip away." The final recovery plan for the rusty patched bumble bee includes actions such as land management to improve floral resources and measures to reduce exposure to pesticides and disease -causing pathogens. Raising awareness about the species and engaging private citizens and groups are also key to recovery." - US Fish & Wildlife Service "Ecosystems function locally. And every time you lose a species from your ecosystem, it functions more poorly. Species have the potential to sink or save the ecosystem, depending on the circumstances. Knowing that we must preserve ecosystems with as many of their interacting species as possible defines our challenge in no uncertain terms. It helps us to focus on the ecosystem as an integrated functioning unit, and it deemphasizes the conservation of single species. Surely this more comprehensive approach is the way to go." — Douglas W. Tallamy It is increasingly clear that much of our wildlife will not be able to survive unless food, shelter, and nest sites can be found in suburban habitats. And because it is we who decide which plants will grow in our gardens, the responsibility for our nation's biodiversity lies largely with us. Which animals will make it and which will not? We help make this decision every time It 4 we plant or remove r)r something from AWit our yards. — Doug Tallamy, Bringing Nature Home, zoo7 Og M Site Information Ecological Land Classification: Province: Eastern Broadleaf Forest Section: Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal I Subsection: St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines Soil: (158C) Zimmerman fine sand • sandy glaciofluvial deposits, somewhat excessively drained ye • 93.3% sand, 4.3% silt, 2.3% clay , (from the USDA's Web Soil Survey) d Hydrology ) The water input in this area is primarily rain runoff from the surrounding slopes, particularly on the southern edge where water from Jerrold Ave/Prior Ave runs into the park. Heavy . 9116 t--- _ - _ _ _ rainfalls result in erosion on that southern edge. There is also erosion along the eastern edge. There is no surface water outflow, only groundwater outflow. The low-lying area typically floods for a few weeks each spring, creating a vernal pond. Ecological Categories • Sandy Upland • Moist Sandy & Loamy Lowland Ecosystem Baseline Inventory • Elm (Ulmus spp.) 60% of the canopy • Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 40% of the canopy • Boxelder (Acer negundo) 55% of the understory • Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 35% of the understory • Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) 5% of the understory • Basswood (Tilia americana) 5% of the understory • Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) • Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia) • Sallow Sedge (Carex lurida), growing in the middle of the vernal pond (photo at right, taken 6-18-22) 61 Aside from the Sallow Sedge, it appears that most of the non -woody plants in this section of the park are non-native and/or invasive species: • Non-native grasses • Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea) • Burdock (Arctium spp.) • Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca) • Asiatic Dayflower (Commelina communis) There is also a small amount of young buckthorn trees along the edge of the woods and a lot of bare soil under the large basswood tree, where it is too dry and shady for the mown grass to grow. Reference Ecosystem: Though this area was historically oak savanna, it would not be reasonable to try to restore this particular location to pre -European -settlement vegetation because the Elm/Cottonwood forest plant community has been established for 70+ years. Based on the soil type and the current native vegetation, this area now best fits the category of Southern Terrace Forest. [See the attachment on FFs59] Some plant species have made it to this site —by wind or animal dispersal —but adding additional species would improve biodiversity and ecosystem health. Current Maintenance: The maintenance of this section is minimal, consisting primarily of mowing the grassy slope between the trail and the woods. Current Use: This is one of the wooded areas of the park that neighborhood children like to explore: climbing on logs and making forts. Goals 1. Elimination of invasive species and reduction of non-native species to < 5% within two years. 2. In the woods around the vernal pond (zones 3&4), try to replicate the plant community that would be found in a Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59). Between the woods and the trail (zones 1-2 & 5-7 combined), increase the diversity of native grasses, sedges and forbs to > 30 species within one year. 3. Maximize genetic diversity when feasible by ordering from multiple nurseries. 4. Have a continuous succession of flowering plants to support pollinators —such as the endangered Rusty Patched Bumblebee —throughout the growing season within three years. 5. Maintain visibility between the northern and western edges of the woods and the trail for both safety and aesthetics. Also, maintain an area of short vegetation (2' or shorter) within 2' of the trail on the northern and western edges which are currently sod. 6. Stabilize the soil to prevent further erosion along the southern edge —using rhizomatous plants —within three years. 7. Create opportunities for community engagement and education. 8. Create a model of responsible land stewardship for park visitors. 9. Leave some areas unaltered for children (and adults) to explore. no Design K It I/ Zone 4 vernal pond +pe�5 cnur:? Zone 3 ,ist woodland plants (2-T) 1 tn IV so«v i Zone 1 short, mesic shade plants (0.5-2') Zone 2 1 medium, mesic shade plants (2-5') 7 Species Selection by Planting Zone (See the Flower Visuals PDF to see many of the species in bloom, by season.) Zone 1: Shade, Edge of Trail (-600 sq.ft.) Common Name Latin Name Heioht Color Bloom Time Plains Oval Sedge Carex brevior 1' Jun -Jul Short -Headed Bracted Sedge Carex cephalophora 1.3' May -Jun Curly -Styled Wood Sedge Carex rosea 1' Jun Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis 2' red Apr -Jun Wild Ginger Asarum canadense 0.5' red Apr -Jun Big -Leaved Aster Eurybia macrophylla 1' purple Aug -Sep Wild Geranium Geranium maculatum 1' lav Apr -Jul Two -leaf Miterwort Mitella diphylla 1' wh/gr Apr -Jun Wild Blue Phlox Phlox divancata 1' blue Apr -Jun Jacob's Ladder Polemonium reptans 1' blue Apr -Jun Calico Aster Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 2' white Aug -Oct Early Meadowrue Thalictrum dioicum 2' green Apr -May White Canadian Violet Viola canadensis 1' white Apr -May Downy Yellow Violet Viola pubescens 0.5' yellow Apr -Jun Common Blue Violet Viola sororia 0.4' purple Apr -Jun Zone 2: Shade, Medium Height Common Wood Sedge Long -Beaked Sedge Bottlebrush Grass Silky Wild Rye Tall Thimbleweed (-2,200 sq.ft.) Carex blanda Carex sprengelii Elymus hystrix Elymus villosus Wild Columbine Spikenard Downy Wood Mint Tall Bellflower Wild Geranium Virginia Waterleaf Early Figwort Heart -Leaved Skullcap Zig Zag Goldenrod Elm -Leaved Goldenrod Heart -Leaved Aster Calico Aster Early Meadowrue Zone 3: Shade, Moist Woodland Hairy Wood Chess Purple -Sheathed Graceful Sedge Silky Wild Rye Virginia Wild Rye Spikenard Jack in the Pulpit Poke Milkweed Hairy Wood Mint Tall Bellflower Sweet Joe-pye Weed Ostrich Fern Virginia Bluebells Sweet Cicely Green -Headed Coneflower Early Figwort Yellow Violet Witch Hazel Chokecherry Nannyberry Anemone virginiana Aquilegia canadensis Aralia racemosa Blephilia hirsuta Campanula americana Geranium maculatum Hydrophyllum virginianum Scrophularia lanceolata Scutellaria ovata Solidago flexicaulis Solidago ulmifolia Symphyotrichum cordifolium Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Thalictrum dioicum Bromus pubescens Carex gracillima Elymus villosus Elymus virginicus Aralia racemosa Arisaema triphyllum Asclepias exaltata Blephilia hirsuta Campanula americana Eutrochium purpureum Matteuccia struthiopteris Mertensia virginica Osmorhiza claytonii Rudbeckia laciniata Scrophularia lanceolata Viola pubescens Hammemalis virginiana Prunus virginiana Viburnum lentago 2' 2' 3' 3' 3' 2' 4' 3' 5' 1' 2' 5' 2' 3' 3' 3' 2' 2' 4' 3' 3' 4' 4' 2' 5' 3' 5' 7' 3' 2' 2' 7' 5' 1' 15' 6' 20' white red cream white blue lav purple red/gr blue/wh yellow yellow blue white green cream green white white blue pink blue white yellow red/gr yellow yellow white white May -Jun May -Jul Jun -Aug Jun -Aug Jun -Aug Apr -Jun Jul -Aug Jun -Sep Jul -Oct Apr -Jul May -Jun May -Jul Jun -Jul Aug -Oct Jul -Oct Sep -Oct Aug -Oct Apr -May Jun -Aug May -Jun Jun -Aug Jul -Aug Jul -Aug Apr -Jul Jun -Jul Jun -Sep Jul -Oct Jul -Sep Apr -May May -Jun Jul -Oct May -Jul Apr -May October Jun -Aug May -Jun Eta Zone 4: Vernal Pond (wet shade) Common Wood Sedge Carex blanda 2' May -Jun Fringed Sedge Carex crinita 3' Jun -Jul Wood Gray Sedge Carex grisea 2' May -Jun Cattail Sedge Carex typhina 1' Jun -Aug Nodding Fescue Festuca subverticillata 2' Jun -Jul Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis 2' white Jun -Sep Yellow Jewelweed Impatiens pallida 4' yellow Jul -Oct Fringed Loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata 2' yellow Jun -Aug Zone 5: Southwest CornerlUnder the Basswood (dry shade) Northern Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera 3' yellow Jun -Jul Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis 2' red Apr -Jun Wild Ginger Asarum canadense 0.5' red Apr -Jun Big -Leaved Aster Eurybia macrophylla 1' purple Aug -Sep Wild Geranium Geranium maculatum 1' lav Apr -Jul Zone 6: Part -Shade Along the Trail Long -Beaked Sedge Carex sprengelii 2' May -Jul Awl -Fruited Oval Sedge Carex tribuloides 3' July Path Rush Juncus tenuis 1' Jun -Sep Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata 4' pink Jun -Aug Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis 2' red Apr -Jun White Turtlehead Chelone glabra 5' white Jul -Sep Northern Bedstraw Galium boreale 2' white Jun -Jul Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa 4' purple Jul -Sep Obedient Plant Physostegia virginiana 4' pink Aug -Sep Mountain Mint Pycnanthemum virginianum 3' white Jun -Sep New England Aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae 5' purple Aug -Oct Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 5' purple Jun -Sep Culversroot Veronicastrum virginicum 5' white Jun -Aug Golden Alexander Zizia aurea 3' yellow Apr -Jun Nannyberry Viburnum lentago 20' white May -Jun Highbush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum 12' white May -Jun Zone 7: The Northern End of Prior Ave/Entrance to the Woods Long -Beaked Sedge Carex sprengelii 2' May -Jul Path Rush Juncus tenuis 1' Jun -Sep Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis 2' red Apr -Jun Northern Bedstraw Galium boreale 2' white Jun -Jul Smooth Blue Aster Symphyotrichum laeve 4' blue Aug -Oct Germander Teucrium canadense 3' pink Jul -Sep Golden Alexander Zizia aurea 3' yellow Apr -Jun Zone 8: The Eastern Edge of the Woods Western Sunflower Helianthus occidentalis 3' yellow Jul -Sep Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa 4' purple Jul -Aug Virgin's Bower Clematis virginiana 9' white Jul -Aug Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 6' white Jun -Aug Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 10, white Jun -Aug Nannyberry Viburnum lentago 20' white May -Jun Key: Grasses/Sedges/Rushes, Shrubs Ecological Benefit of Various Species Wild Columbine nectar/pollen: feed hummingbirds (on their northward migration), queen bumble bees, small sweat bees foliage: Columbine Duskywing Butterfly, Columbine Borer Moth, Columbine Sawfly Big -Leaf Aster nectar/pollen: bumble bees, yellow -faced bees, long -horned bees, green sweat bees, small sweat bees, mining bees, syrphid flies foliage: Silvery Checkerspot, Pearl Crescentspot Butterfly, Goldenrod Hooded Owlet 9 Wild Geranium nectar/pollen: mining bees (including the specialist Andrena distans), small carpenter bees, small sweat bees, sweat bees, orchard mason bees, bumble bees, cuckoo bees, syrphid flies, thick-headed flies,fruitworm beetle foliage: Leafmining Moth, White -Marked Tussock Moth Swamp Milkweed nectar: butterflies and moths (including small skippers, monarchs, fritillaries, red admirals, sulphurs, white, swallowtails and crescents), yellow -faced bees, bumblebees, sweat bees, green sweat bees, small resin bees, leafcutter bees, Great Black Wasp, Great Golden Digger Wasp, square -headed wasps, paper wasps, yellowjackets, bee flies, green bottle flies, tachinid flies, syrphid flies, red milkweed beetles, Milkweed Leaf Beetle, soldier beetles, long -horned beetles foliage: Monarch Butterfly, Queen Butterfly Mountain Mint nectar: bumble bees, long -horned bees, green sweat bees, yellow -faced bees, small resin bees, Banded Hairstreak Butterfly, paper wasps, thynnid wasps, Great Golden Digger Wasp, Great Black Wasp, cuckoo wasps, beewolves, potter wasps, grass -carrying wasps, soldier flies, syrphid flies, wedge-shaped beetles, ants New England Aster nectar/pollen: important fall food source for butterflies and moths, mining bees (including the specialist Andrena simplex), bumble bees, small carpenter bees, leafcutter bees, long -horned bees, cuckoo bees, green sweat bees, bee flies, syrphid flies, soldier beetles foliage: Pearl Crescent Butterfly, Canadian Sonia Moth Blue vervain nectar: many types of butterflies, sweat bees, green sweat bees, small carpenter bees, bumble bees, long -horned bees, leafcutter bees, mining bees (including the specialist Calliopsis nebraskensis), bee flies, syrphid flies, thick-headed flies foliage: Verbena Moth Culver's Root nectar/pollen: many butterflies, bumble bees, leafcutter bees, sweat bees, yellow -faced bees, long -horned bees, sweat bees, green sweat bees, thread -waisted wasps, Great Golden Digger Wasp, Great Black Wasp, syrphid flies, tachinid flies, thick-headed flies foliage: Culver's Root Borer Moth Wild Bergamot nectar/pollen: many butterflies and moths (including the Hummingbird Clearwing Moth), "one of the best forage plants for bumble bees," long -horned bees, cuckoo bees, green sweat bees, sweat bees, leafcutter bees, wood carder bees, small resin bees, the specialist Black Sweat Bee (Dufourea monardae), mason wasps, Great Black Wasp, bee flies, soldier beetles, Banded Long -Horned Beetle foliage: Hermit Sphinx Moth, snout moths Golden Alexanders nectar/pollen: azure butterflies, mining bees (including the specialist Andrena ziziae), mason bees, bumble bees, sweat bees, yellow -faced bees, small carpenter bees, Wood -Boring Mason Wasp, potter wasps, syrphid flies, tachinid flies, crab spiders, soldier beetles, ebony bugs, Ladybird Beetle foliage: Black Swallowtail, Ozark Swallowtail, Rigid Sunflower Borer Poke Milkweed: host plant for Monarch, Unexpected Cycnia Moth, Delicate Cycnia Moth Honewort: host plant for Black Swallowtail Sweet Joe Pye Weed: host plant for 40 insect species False Nettle: host plant for Red Admiral, Question Mark, Eastern Comma, and others • Though Wood Nettle would be preferred for a more precise restoration to a Southern Terrace Forest ecosystem (and it's also quite beautiful), Wood Nettle is very aggressively rhizomatous AND painful to touch. False nettle appears to have most of the benefits of Wood Nettle (including for foraging and fiber use), but without those drawbacks. Fringed Loosestrife: an essential food source for the rare oil bees (Macropis spp.), which depend on Lysimachia species. "Floral oils are mixed with pollen provisions and used to waterproof the linings of the cell wall (cane et al. 1983), allowing Macropis to nest in the damp soils favored by Lysimachia species." (from ResearchGate.net) I contacted the Specialist Bee specialist with the U of M and was told this: "I would hold hope for the oil bees. The only place I have seen them IRL nature is at Eloise Butler Wildflower garden, at a pretty small spot of Lysimachia in the middle of the city. You may be surprised at their ability to find it once it's there!" Hairy Wood Chess: turkey feed on the seeds Nodding Fescue: host plant for Indian Skipper Bottlebrush Grass: host plant for Northern Pearly -Eye Witch Hazel: important late -season nectar source, host plant for Witch Hazel Dagger Moth K11 Some indications that the project is successfully supporting pollinators would be the presence of the following: • Rusty Patched Bumble Bees (Bombus affinis) o "A survey from 1994-1995 of 464 bumble bees at Long Lake Regional Park in New Brighton, Minnesota found 98 rusty patched bumble bee individuals. A survey during the summers of 2007 and 2008 at the same park of 593 bumble bees found no rusty patched bumble bees." -Xerxes.org o I am fairly certain that I spotted ONE rusty patched bumble bee in the summer of 2022, a quarter mile south of the park. I think it is important that we do what we can to support what is left of the population. • Oil Bees (Macropis spp.) • Small Carpenter Bees (Ceratina spp., which nest in soft, woody shrubs such as elderberry, which is present in other areas of the park) • Black Swallowtail Butterflies Timeline May: • Examine existing vegetation to see if any other desirable species are present; • Apply herbicide to non-native grasses and forbs; • Repeat the herbicide application a few weeks later to any herbaceous weeds that were not killed with the first application. June: • Pick up plant orders; • Set up a water barrel; • Begin planting, with possible volunteer assistance; • Protect planted shrubs with wire cages. July: • Continue hand -watering as needed throughout the summer; • Monitor and weed twice/month; • Remove the buckthorn and use herbicide to treat the stumps. Aug/Sep: • Plant additional donated seedlings when they're well -rooted and as the weather allows. October: • Plant seeds, if ordered. Short -Term Maintenance A newly planted area will require watering during periods of dry weather. It will also require frequent weeding during the first few years since soil disturbance will expose weed seeds that are in the seed bank; that should be minimal after the plants become established and fill in gaps. Long -Term Maintenance • Spring (May/early June): o Visual inspection to look for invasive species and removal of any found. o Optional trimming of tall vegetation by hand to a height of 18-24". • Late Summer/Early Fall o Visual inspection to look for invasive species and removal of any found. o Removing tall plants that are coming up too close to the trail. I can't predict right now how much time this will take. A visual inspection would probably take about half an hour. If weeds are present, the time required to remove them would depend on how well they've become established. That is why I recommend monitoring twice per year —in the spring to prevent any garlic mustard from going to seed (if it 11 spreads from other areas of the park), and in the late summer to prevent weeds like burdock and motherwort from going to seed, as well as removing any young buckthorn that is found. I intend to manage the maintenance for at least three years to assure that the plants are well -established and the weeds are controlled. What is Needed From the Public Works Department • Establishing a Wholesale Account at Landscape Alternatives (if the city chooses to order from them) • Ordering the Plants (late winter/early spring) 0 Communicating with me when arranging a time for pickup or delivery of the orders • Ordering Seeds, if Option 3 is chosen (late summer/early fall) • Herbicide/Backpack Sprayer 0 I'll need to spray once in the spring (when it's above 60oF) to kill unwanted vegetation and then go back again a couple weeks later to spray anything I missed. • Water 0 1 can provide a rain barrel for water storage on -site if city staff can fill it during summer/fall of 2023. The plants should not need additional water after the first year, unless there are drought conditions. Plant Sources Looking through the DNR's list of native plant nurseries for central MN (plus some nurseries I saw at native plant expos last summer) and their websites, I've broken down the list into four categories: 1. Bulk Seed Suppliers: MNLCorp, Prairie Moon, Prairie Restorations, and Shootingstar Nursery 2. Bulk Plug Suppliers: Dragonfly Gardens (32-pot flats for $60), Glacial Ridge Growers (18-pot flats for $34.25), Landscape Alternatives (6-packs for $10.95), MNLCorp (36-plug flats for $89, but almost exclusively prairie plants), and Prairie Restorations (6-packs for—$11.50, email for quote on bulk pricing) 3. Retail Suppliers: Blazingstar Gardens, BluPrairie, Ecoscapes, Morning Sky, and Sogn Valley Farms (all on the order of —$4-8/plant) 4. Bulk Tree/Shrub Suppliers: MN State Forest Nursery (500 plant order minimum) For this project, I'm focusing on using plugs to achieve faster results with a more tidy appearance. Of the suppliers in that category, Dragonfly Gardens, Glacial Ridge Growers, and Landscape Alternatives had the lowest listed prices. Dragonfly Gardens (in Amery, WI) Size Price 3 Inch Pots: $7.00 each 2 Inch Pots (32 pots/flat) $3.00 each $60/Full Flat of Single Species $75/Mix and Match Full Flat **Orders over 5 flats will have a $25 Pulling Fee. **25% Down Payment on orders over $500 Glacial Ridge Growers ** Grasses/Forbs - 18 pots/flat - $34.25/flat; Ferns —18 pots/flat - $49.95 ** Wholesale orders must include an 8-flat minimum. Less than 8 flats per order will be subject to an upcharge. Orders that are delivered before June 1st must be full flats of one variety per flat. Orders that are delivered after June 1st may be mixed variety flats (depending upon availability). Landscape Alternatives Wholesale: $10.95/6-pack shrubs: $10.75 / 1 gallon, $24.95 / 2 gallon Cost Estimates OPTION 1 My initial intention was to plant plugs somewhat densely to fill in somewhat quickly, particularly along the trail where it would be most visible. For two species that would be planted in a large quantity, I suggest purchasing plugs from two suppliers to increase the genetic diversity. Estimated Cost: $4,331 for 2,318 plugs + 18 small shrubs 12 OPTION 2 This option has fewer plants —with reductions primarily in the grasses/sedges—and so would be more sparsely planted. Estimated Cost: $3,001 for 1,566 plugs + 14 small shrubs OPTION 3 This also includes ordering smaller quantities of some species than Option 2. That would result in a more sparse appearance to start with, but would be supplemented with fall seeding. Pros: more potential plants if the germination is good, Cons: up to two years longer for those seedlings to mature; possibility for seed to wash away on the slopes Estimated Cost: $2,296 for 1,212 plugs, 14 small shrubs + 13 seed packets Information Sources Evans, Elaine. Researcher, Department of Entomology, UofM Bee Lab. Contact for issues regarding native and wild bee biology and bumblebee management. Holm, Heather. 2014. Pollinators of Native Plants: Attract, Observe and Identify Pollinators and Beneficial Insects with Native Plants Jarvis, B. 2018. The Insect Apocalypse is Here: What does it mean for the rest of life on Earth?, New York Times Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Tomorrow's Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/bigpicture/cwcs/profiles/st paul baldwin121ains.pdf Tallamy, Douglas. 2009. Bringing Nature Home: How Native Plants Sustain Wildlife in Our Gardens Wovcha, D., B. Delaney, and G. Nordquist. 1995. Minnesota's Si. Croix River Valley and the Anoka Sandplain: A Guide to Native Habitats Websites Aerial Photography of MN, htti)s://wwvv.mncieo.state.mn.us/chouse/airl3hoto/ Ecological Classification System, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html Native Plant Suppliers, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/backyard/gardens/native_ plant/suppliers_central.pdf Prairie Moon Nursery, www.prairiemoon.com Public Land Survey Retrieval System, https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/glo/index.html RPBB Priority Grid, httr)s://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=feab9e66608840818795c2dfef93993b&extent=-95. 4873, 36.0689,-69.5815,46.6361 Research Gate, https://www.researchgate. net/figure/A-Fringed-Loosestrife-Lysimachia-ciliata-L-flower-B-Lysimachia-ciliata-in-flo wer-in fial 335691485 Restoring the Little Things That Run the World (D. Tallamy), 2020, https://wwvv.youtube.com/watch?v=bF5e-vvKLwO Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Recovery Plan, https://www.fws. gov/story/2021-11/rusty-patched-bu mble-bee-recovery-plan U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, htti)s://www.fws.ciov/species/rusty-patched-bumble-bee-bombus-affinis Web Soil Survey, websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Xerxes Society, The Petition to List the rusty patched bumble bee AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, https://www.xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/Bombus-affinis-petition. pdf 13 Attachment B Pricing - Option 1 Dragonfl Landscape Y Glacial Outback Blazing Bluffview Native (Some of these plants will also be Alternative Gardens. Ridge Nursery. Ecoscape starGard Nursery Wildflowers Perennial ZONES 3 & 4 used in other zones.) me s net Growers com sl.com ens.com .org net Co.com Plants of a Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59 a&c) I can $3 each $10/gallon dormant, bare -root plants donate Forbs some —$11 / 6 $60 / 32 $34.25/18 $20/shrub $25112 Arisaema triphyllum jack-in-the-pulpit 1 $40/10, $15/3 $46/10, $1 *,Asclepias exaltata Poke Milkweed X 2 X Blephilia hirsuta woodmint 6 3 X Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle X *Campanula americana Tall Bellflower X 2 Cryptotaenia canadensis honewort X Enemion biternatum false rue anemone Erythronium americanum yellow trout lily $15150 $40/10, $15/3 $46110 *Eutrochium purpureum Sweet Joe-Pye Weed X 5 X 2 1 X X Galium aparine cleavers **Galium boreale northern bedstraw Galium triflorum sweet -scented bedstraw Geranium maculatum wild geranium 3 2 X X $40/10, $15/3 $46/10, $15 Geum canadense white avens Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia waterleaf Impatiens capensis jewelweed X Laportea canadensis wood nettle Lobelia cardinalis cardinal flower 2 X X X X Lycopus virginicus Virginia water horehound *Lysimachia ciliata Fringed Loosestrife X X Matteuccia struthiopteris ostrich fern $6, $54/1( $50/18 1 X Mertensia virginica Virginia bluebells $50/100, $3 each $46/10, $15 Osmorhiza claytonii Clayton's sweet cicely X 2 Osmorhiza longistylis aniseroot X Phlox divaricata blue woodland phlox 1 X X $6.50/12 Physostegia virginiana obedient plant 2 X X X Pilea pumila clearweed Podophyllum peltatum mayapple $6.50/12 $49/10, $1813 $21/3 Polygonum virginianum Virginia knotweed Ranunculus hispidus hispid buttercup Rudbeckia laciniata tall coneflower 4 X X Sanicula marilandica black snakeroot *Scrophularia lanceolata Early Figwort X Scutellaria lateriflora mad -dog skullcap Smilacina stellata starry false Solomon's seal Stachys tenuifolia smooth hedgenettle Symphotrichum ontarionis Ontario aster Thalictrum dioicum early meadowrue 8 4 X Urtica dioica stinging nettle Viola pubescens yellow violet X Viola sororia common blue violet X species are adapted to similar moist, shady conditions and are also valuable to pollinators.) (* Though not listed as part of the FFs59 plant community, these (** 1 recommend using this similar Galium species because it has similar habitat requirements and ecological value, but without the hairs that catch on clothing.) (Though it's very valuable to pollinators, I do not recommend planting cow parsnip I in an area where people may come in I contact with it because it can cause phytophotodermatitis in some people.) Grasses/Sedges Bromus pubescens Hairy Wood Chess X Carex amphibola Carex blanda common wood sedge X Carex crinita fringed sedge 1 X X $9.95 X Carex grayi common bur sedge X Carex grisea wood gray sedge X Carex lupulina common hop sedge X X $9.95 Carex rosea curly -styled wood sedge X X Carex tribuloides awl -fruited oval sedge 4 Carex typhina common cattail sedge 1 $9.95 Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 6 Festuca subverticillata nodding fescue X Leersia virginica white grass Vines Clematis virginiana virgin's bower X X $15 Parthenocissus slop. Virginia creeper Vitis riparia wild grape (Since Virginia creeper and wild grape are already present in this location, there is no need to plant more. Shrubs Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush X $7.50 $13.75 Crataegus spp. hawthorns Euonymus atropurpureus wahoo $49 Prunus virginiana chokecherry 2@$7.5 $20 Ribes cynosbati prickly gooseberry Ribes missouriensis Missouri gooseberry $13.75 Sambucus canadensis common elderberry $20 $7.50 $23.45 $20 Sambucus racemosa red -berried elder Staphylea trifolia bladdernut $15 OUT Viburnum lentago nannyberry #2 pots 4$20 $23.45 Viburnum trilobum highbush cranberry I I X 2@$7.5 $13.75 $20 (There is already abundant red -berried elder elsewhere in Hazelnut Park. 1 would not recommend adding hawthorn in an area where children play because of the thorns.) (ZONES 1, 2,5 (plants adapted to mesic/dry shade) Forbs Anemone virginiana Thimbleweed 4 2 Aquilegia canadensis Wild Columbine X 4 X X Aralia racemosa Spikenard X Asarum canadense Wild Ginger 3 Blephilia hirsuta Downy Wood Mint X Campanula americana Tall Bellflower X X Eurybia macrophylla Big -Leaved Aster X 3 X X Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry X 2 X X Geranium maculatum Wild Geranium X Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia Waterleaf Mitella diphylla Two -leaf Miterwort/Bishop's Cap X 1 Phlox divaricata Wild Blue Phlox Polemonium reptans Jacob's Ladder 4 X X X Scrophularia lanceolata Early Figwort X Scutellaria ovata Heart -Leaved Skullcap X Solidago flexicaulis Zig Zag Goldenrod X 6 2 X Solidago ulmifolia Elm -Leaved Goldenrod X 6 2 Symphyotrichum cordifolium Heart -Leaved Aster X Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico Aster 3 2 Thalictrum dioicum Early Meadowrue X X X X Viola canadensis White Canadian Violet Grasses/Sedges Carex blanda Common Wood Sedge Carex brevior Plains Oval Sedge 20 X X Carex cephalophora Short -Headed Bracted Sedge X Carexrosea Curly -Styled Wood Sedge 7 X Carexsprengehi Long -Beaked Sedge X 24 2 Elymus hystrix Bottlebrush Grass 14 2 X $9.95 X Elymus villosus Silky Wild Rye X 19 2 Shrubs Diervilla lonicera Northern Bush Honeysuckle X *6@$2.25 5@$7.50 $13.75 $20 * best size for planting under the basswood tree ZONES 6 & 7 Forbs Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed 2 X X X Chelone glabra White Turtlehead 2 X X X Pycnanthemum virginianum Mountain Mint 2 X Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth Blue Aster 2 X X Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster 2 X X X Teucrium canadense Germander X Verbena hastata Blue Vervain 2 X X X Veronicastrum virginicum Culversroot 2 X X X X Zizia aurea Golden Alexander X 2 X X GrasseslSedg eslRushes 10 1 X $9.95 Juncus tenuis Path Rush ZONE 8 Forbs Helianthus occidentalis Western Sunflower Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot Vines Clematis virginiana Virgin's Bower X 2 2 X X X 2 X $15 grasses & forbs: 178 packs 19 flats 31 flats (+ferns) # of plants: 1134 608 576 $1,949 $1,140 $1,112 $4, 201 shrubs: $55I $75 $130.00 Total: $4,331 Attachment C Pricing - Option 2 Dragonfl Landscape Y Glacial Outback Blazing Bluffview Native (Some of these plants will also be Alternative Gardens. Ridge Nursery. Ecoscape starGard Nursery Wildflowers Perennial ZONES 3 & 4 used in other zones.) me s net Growers corn sl.com ens.com .org net Co.com Plants of a Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59 a&c) I can $3 each $10/gallon dormant, bare -root plants donate Forbs some $11 / 6 $60 / 32 $34.25/18 $20/shrub $25/12 Arisaema triphyllum jack-in-the-pulpit 1 $40/10, $15/3 $46110, $15 1 Asclepias exaltata Poke Milkweed X X 5 X Blephilia hirsuta woodmint X X Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle X *Campanula americana Tall Bellflower 1 X Cryptotaenia canadensis honewort Enemion biternatum false rue anemone Erythronium americanum yellow trout lily $15/50 $40/10, $15/3 $46/10 *Eutrochium purpureum Sweet Joe-Pye Weed X 4 X Galium aparine cleavers _ **Galium boreale northern bedstraw 8 X X X Galium triflorum sweet -scented bedstraw Geranium maculatum wild geranium 2 X X X $40/10, $1513 $46/10, $15 Geum canadense white avens Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip Hydrophyllumvirginianum Virginia waterleaf X Impatiens capensis jewelweed Laportea canadensis wood nettle Lobelia cardinalis cardinal flower X X X X X Lycopus virginicus Virginia water horehound X �Lysimachia ciliate I Fringed Loosestrife X Matteuccia struthiopteris ostrich fern $6, $54/1 $50/18 Mertensia virginica Virginia bluebells $50/100, $3 each S4e/10, $15 1 X [Osmorhiza claytonii Clayton's sweet cicely X 1 X Osmorhiza longistylis aniseroot Phlox divaricata blue woodland phlox 1 X X $6.50/12 Physostegia virginiana obedient plant 2 X X X Piles pumila cleanaeed Podophyllum peltatum mayapple 1 $6.50/12 $49/10, $18/3 $21/3 Polygonum virginianum Virginia knotweed Ranunculus hispidus hispid buttercup Rudbeckia laciniata tall coneflower 21 X X Sanicula marilandica black snakeroot *Scrophularia lanceolata Early Figwort Scutellaria lateriflora mad -dog skullcap Smilacina stellata starry false Solomon's seal Stachys tenuifolia smooth hedgenettle Symphotrichum ontarionis Ontario aster Thalictrum dioicum early meadowrue X X X Urtica dioica stinging nettle Viola pubescens yellow violet X Viola sorona common blue violet X species are adapted to similar moist, shady conditions and are also valuable to pollinators.) (* Though not listed as part of the FFs59 plant community, these (** I recommend using this similar Galium species because it has similar habitat requirements and ecological value, but without the hairs that catch on clothing.) (Though it's very valuable to pollinators, 1 do not recommend planting cow parsnip in an area where people may come in contact with it because it can cause phytophotodermatitis in some people.) Grasses/Sedges Bromus pubescens Hairy Wood Chess X I Carex amphibola Carex blanda common wood sedge X Carex crinita fringed sedge 1 X X $9.95 X Carex grayi common bur sedge X Carex grisea wood gray sedge X Carex lupulina common hop sedge X X Carex rosea curly -styled wood sedge X X Carex tribuloides awl -fruited oval sedge X Carex typhina common cattail sedge 1 $9.95 Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye I 6 Festuca subverticillata nodding fescue X Leersia virginica white grass Vines Clematis virginiana virgin's bower X X $15 Parthenocissus spp. Virginia creeper Vitis ripana wild grape (Since Virginia creeper and wild grape are already present in this location, there is no need to plant more Shrubs Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush X $7.50 $13.75 Crataegus spp. hawthorns Euonymus atropurpureus wahoo $49 Prunus virginiana chokecherry $7.50 $20 Ribes cynosbati prickly gooseberry Ribes missouriensis Missouri gooseberry $13.75 Sambucus canadensis common elderberry $20 $7.50 $23.45 $20 Sambucus racemosa red -berried elder Staphylea trifolia bladdernut $15 OUT Viburnum lentago nannyberry #2 pots $20 $23.45 Viburnum trilobum highbush cranberry I I X $7.501 $13.75 $20 Park. I would not recommend adding hawthorn in an area where children play because of the thorns.) (There is already abundant red -berried elder elsewhere in Hazelnut ZONES 1, 2, 5 1 (plants adapted to mesic/dry shade) Forbs Anemone virginiana Thimbleweed Aquilegia canadensis Wild Columbine Aralia racemosa Spikenard Asarum canadense Wild Ginger Blephilia hirsuta Downy Wood Mint Campanula americana Tall Bellflower Eurybia macrophylla Big -Leaved Aster Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry Geranium maculatum Wild Geranium Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia Waterleaf Mitella diphylla Two -leaf Miterwort/Bishop's Cap Phlox divaricata Wild Blue Phlox Polemonium reptans Jacob's Ladder Scrophularia lanceolata Early Figwort Scutellaria ovata Heart -Leaved Skullcap Solidago flexicaulis Zig Zag Goldenrod Solidago ulmifolia Elm -Leaved Goldenrod Symphyotrichum cordifolium Heart -Leaved Aster Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico Aster Thalictrum dioicum Early Meadowrue Viola canadensis White Canadian Violet Grasses/Sedges Carex blanda Common Wood Sedge Carex brevior Plains Oval Sedge Carex cephalophora Short -Headed Bracted Sedge Carex rosea Curly -Styled Wood Sedge Carex sprengelii Long -Beaked Sedge Elymus hystrix Bottlebrush Grass Elymus villosus Silky Wild Rye Shrubs Diervilla lonicera Northern Bush Honeysuckle 4 4 X X X X X X X X EL X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 tX 41 X X 6 X X 6 X 31 X 2 X 7 X X X X X X 18 X 6 24 X 10 ] X 16 X X X $9.95 X X X X X *6@$2.25 4@$7.51 $13.75 $20 * best size for planting under the basswood tree ZONES 6 & 7 Forbs Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed 1 X X X Chelone glabra White Turtlehead I 1 X X X Pycnanthemum virginianum Mountain Mint Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth Blue Aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster Teucrium canadense Germander Verbena hastata Blue Vervain Veronicastrum virginicum Culversroot Zizia aurea Golden Alexander Grasses/Sedges/Rushes Juncus tenuts Path Rush X X 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2 1 1 2 1 51 1 X $9.95 ZONE 8 Forbs Heltanthus occidentalis Western Sunflower Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot Vines Clematis virginiana Virgin's Bower X 1 X X X 1 1 X $15 grasses & forbs: 152 packs 12 flats 14 flats (+ferns) # of plants: 912 384 270 $1,665 $720 $530 $2,915 shrubs: $33.50 $52.50 $86.00 Total: $3,001 Attachment D Pricing - Option 3 Dragonfl Prairie Landscape y Glacial Outback Blazing Bluffview Native (Some of Lthese plants will also be Moon Alternative Gardens. Ridge Nursery. Ecoscape starGard Nursery Wildflowers Perennial ZONES 3 & 4 used in other zones.) me com s net Growers com sl.com ens.com org net Co.com Plants of a Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59 a&c) can $3 each $10/gallon dormant, bare -root plants donate ForbS some $11 / 6 $60 / 32 $34.25/18 $20/shrub $25/12 Arisaema triphyllum Asclepias exaltata jack-in-the-pulpit Poke Milkweed X X $40/10, $1513 $46/10, Blephilia hirsuta woodmint $3.00/1k 3 X X Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle X X *Campanula americana Tall Bellflower 1 Cryptotaenia canadensis honewort X Enemion biternatum false rue anemone Eiythronium americanum yellow trout lily $15/50 $40/10, $15/3 $46/10 *Eutrochium purpureum Sweet Joe-Pye Weed X $6.25nk 3 X Galium aparine cleavers 5 X X X 1 **Galium boreale northern bedstraw $3/400 Galium triflorum sweet -scented bedstraw Z Geranium maculatum wild geranium r 2 X X X $40/10, $15/3 $46/10, $1 Geum canadense white avens Heracleum lanatum cow parsnip Hydrophyllumvirginianum Virginia waterleaf 12.50/23 Impatiens capensis jewelweed X Laportea canadensis wood nettle Lobelia cardinalis cardinal flower X X X X X Lycopus virginicus Virginia water horehound *Lysimachia ciliata I Fringed Loosestrife X X Matteuccia struthiopteris ostrich fern $6, $54/10 $50/18 Mertensta virginica Virginia bluebells 1 X $50/100, $3 each $46/10, $1 Osmorhiza claytonii Clayton's sweet cicely X $10/0.6k X X Osmorhiza longistylis aniseroot Phlox divaricata blue woodland phlox 1—] X X $6.50/12 Physostegia virginiana obedient plant 2 X X X Pilea pumila clearweed Podophyllum peltatum mayapple $6.50/12 $49/10, $18/3 $21/3 Polygonum virginianum Virginia knotweed Ranunculus hispidus hispid buttercup Rudbeckia laciniata tall coneflower $4.00/1k 2 X X Sanicula marilandica black snakeroot *Scrophularia lanceolata Early Figwort X Scutellaria lateriflora mad -dog skullcap Smilacina stellata starry false Solomon's seal Stachys tenuifolia smooth hedgenettle Symphotrichum ontarionis Ontario aster Thalictrum dioicum early meadowrue X X X Urtica dioica stinging nettle X Viola pubescens yellow violet Viola sororia common blue violet X (* Though not listed as part of the FFs59 plant community, these species are adapted to similar moist, shady conditions and are also valuable to pollinators.) (** 1 recommend using this similar Galium species because it has similar habitat requirements and ecological value, but without the hairs that catch on clothing.) (Though it's very valuable to pollinators, I do not recommend planting cow parsnip in an area where people may come in contact with it because it can cause phytophotodermatitis in some people.) I I I I Grasses/Sedges Bromus pubescens Hairy Wood Chess ,. Carex amphibola Carex blanda common wood sedge X Carex crinita fringed sedge 1 X Carex grayi common bur sedge Carex grisea wood gray sedge X 1 $9.95 X X Carex lupulina common hop sedge X X $9.95 Carex rosea curly -styled wood sedge X X Carex tribuloides awl -fruited oval sedge X Carex ryphina common cattail sedge 1 $9.95 Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye $3.50/3.5k 3 Festuca subverticillata nodding fescue X Leersia virginica white grass Vines Clematis virginiana virgin's bower X X $15 Parthenocissus slop. Virginia creeper Vitis nparia wild grape (Since Virginia creeper and wild grape are already present in this location, there is no need to plant more.) Shrubs Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush X $7.50 $13.75 Crataegus slop. hawthorns Euonymus atropurpureus wahoo $49 Prunus virginiana chokecherry $7.50 $20 Ribes cynosbati prickly gooseberry Ribes missouriensis Missouri gooseberry $13.75 Sambucus canadensis common elderberry $20 $7.50 $23.45 $20 Sambucus racemosa red -berried elder Staphylea trifolia bladdernut $15 OUT �l Viburnum lentago nannyberry #2 pots $20 $23.45 Viburnum trilobum highbush cranberry I I I X $7.50 $13.75 $20 (There is already abundant red -berried elder elsewhere in Hazelnut Park. I would not recommend adding hawthorn in an area where children play because of the thorns.) ZONES 1, 2, 5 (plants adapted to mesic/dry shade) Anemone virginiana Thimbleweed $10/3k 2 X Aquilegia canadensis Wild Columbine X 4 X �E2 X Aralia racemosa Spikenard X Asarum canadense Wild Ginger Blephilia hirsuta Downy Wood Mint Campanula americana Tall Bellflower X X X X Eurybia macrophylla Big -Leaved Aster X 1 X X Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry X 1 X X Geranium maculatum Wild Geranium X X Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia Waterleaf Mitella diphylla Two -leaf Miterwort/Bishop's cap X 1 Phlox divaricata Wild Blue Phlox Polemonium reptans Jacob's Ladder 4 X X X Scrophularia lanceolata Early Figwort X Scutellaria ovata Heart -Leaved Skullcap X Solidago flexicaulis Zig Zag Goldenrod X 6 X X Solidago ulmifolia Elm -Leaved Goldenrod X 6 X Symphyotrichum cordifoltum Heart -Leaved Aster 3 1 X Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico Aster 2 X Thalictrum dioicum Early Meadowrue X $10/1k 7 X Viola canadensis White Canadian Violet X Grasses/Sedges Carex blanda Common Wood Sedge Carex brevior Plains Oval Sedge 18 X X Carex cephalophora Short -Headed Bracted Sedge X Carex rosea Curly -Styled Wood Sedge 6 X Carex sprengel/i Long -Beaked Sedge X $7.50/1k 12 X Elymus hystrix Bottlebrush Grass Elymus villosus Silky Wild Rye X $4.00/1k $4.00/1.5k 6 1 X 10 X $9.95 X Shrubs Diervilla Ionicera Northern Bush Honeysuckle I X *6@$2.25 4@$7.5 1 $13.75 $20 * best size for planting under the basswood tree ZONES 6 & 7 Forbs Ascleptas incarnata Swamp Milkweed 1 X X X Chelone glabra White Turtlehead 1 X X X Pycnanthemum virginianum Mountain Mint 2 X Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth Blue Aster 2 X X Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster 1 X X X Teucrium canadense Germander X Verbena hastata Blue Vervain 1 X X X Veronicastrum virginicum Culversroot 2 X X X X Zizia aurea Golden Alexander X 1 X X Grasses/Sedges/Rushes $10/100k 3 X X $9.95 Juncustenuis Path Rush ZONE 8 Forbs Helianthus occidentalis Western Sunflower Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot Vines Clematis virginiana Virgin's Bower X 1 1 X X X 1 X $15 grasses & forbs: 115 packs 9 flats 12 flats (+ferns) # of plants: 690 288 234 $87.75* $1,259 $540 $411 (plus tax & shipping) $2,210 shrubs: $33.50 $52.50 $86.00 Total: $2,296 AGENDA ITEM — 3C -iZR�EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed 2024 PMP Street and Utility Improvements Project Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $2,300,000 (CIP) TBD through feasibility study PIR, Surface Water, Sanitary, Water, Special Assessments Council Should Consider • City staff is preparing a resolution ordering a feasibility study for the 2024 PMP Street and Utility Improvements for consideration by the City Council on March 13, 2023. Staff is requesting an opportunity to review the anticipated project scope, budget and schedule with the City Council prior to ordering the feasibility study. • Consideration of direct selecting engineering consultant Bolton & Menk for professional services to complete the feasibility report, design of project plans and specifications, and construction administration. Background The 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Attachment A, identifies proposed street and utility improvements within the McClung/Colleen neighborhood area for 2024, this can be seen in Attachment B. The proposed area consists of Keithson Dr. from Highway 96 W to the south 800- feet, Royal Hills Dr. from Snelling Avenue N to Arden View Dr., Arden Vista Ct., McClung Dr., Colleen Ave., Colleen Cir., Briarknoll Cir., Briarknoll Dr., Norma Ave. from Dawn Cir. to Colleen Ave., James Ave. and Royal Ln. which includes approximately 168 single-family homes. The proposed project area is made up of 10 developments labeled as Keithson Addition (1986), Royal Hills (1982), Royal Hills North (1985), McClung First Addition (1978), McClung Second Addition (1981), McClung Third Addition (1984), Briarknoll (1978), Briarknoll Plat Two (1981), Indian Oaks Two (1976) and Gier Addition (1980). Along with the development, public utilities were constructed with PVC sanitary sewer, ductile iron pipe (DIP) water main and stormwater retention ponds. The condition of this infrastructure is described in the Preliminary Scope of Work section. Page 1 of 5 Staff is preparing a resolution ordering a feasibility study for the 2024 PMP Street and Utility Improvements for consideration by the City Council at the March 13, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a general description of the preliminary scope, budget and schedule for the project and seek any direction the Council may wish to provide as staff prepares the feasibility report and recommended special assessment roll. Preliminary Scope of Work Existing infrastructure conditions within the proposed project area are as follows: • Streets o Through City pavement management records, the latest structural project type for the streets were: ■ 1994 Reconstruction: Keithson Dr. ■ 1997 Reconstruction: Royal Hills Dr., Arden Vista Ct., McClung Dr., Colleen Ave., Colleen Cir., Norma Ave., and James Ave. ■ 2007 Reclamation: Briarknoll Cir., Briarknoll Dr., and Royal Ln. o The typical life cycle of a road with a structural type project is 15-20 years, which puts this area in the category for pavement rehabilitation. o Current pavement condition ratings range from 20 to 45 out of a possible score of 100. The surface of the streets is in poor condition covered with an extensive amount of cracking and delamination. These streets have seen an increase in needs for pothole filling and patching, therefore increasing the cost to maintain. o Core samples from the Pavement Forensic Report resulted in varied conditions from good to poor, but ultimately a majority of the cores were showing signs of deterioration. o Pavement rehabilitation will likely consist of mill & overlay or full -depth reclamation with a finished 4-inch thick pavement mat. • Sanitary o All of the sewer that was installed as part of the residential development consists of 8-inch PVC material. o Televising reports provided by our Public Works Department indicates the pipe is in good condition. o Manhole castings and concrete rings are deteriorating and need repair. o Sanitary services will be more closely reviewed during the feasibility study to determine repairs for inflow and infiltration. Page 2 of 5 • Water o Water main was installed as part of the residential developments with 6-inch and fl- inch ductile iron pipe (DIP). o The project area does not show a history of main breaks that would indicate poor condition of pipe. o Public Works has identified a few hydrants and valves to replace. o James Avenue has existing 6-inch watermain that needs to be upgraded to 8-inch. • Storm Drainage o Storm catch basin structures that are deteriorating and need repair have been identified by Public Works. o Storm structures directly upstream of stormwater retention ponds will be upgraded with sumps or relative sediment traps if feasible. o Storm sewer pipe needs to be televised to report condition. o Public Works has identified several stormwater retention ponds that will require dredging. o Curb and gutter is generally in good condition but spot replacement will be needed in some areas. Additional research regarding the age and condition of existing infrastructure will be evaluated during preparation of the feasibility report. Preliminary Project Budget From the 2023-2027 CIP, the initial cost estimate is summarized in the following table and will be revised as part of the feasibility report. This estimate includes the anticipated costs for engineering design, surveying, and construction administration as a 27% contingency, which is consistent with the 2021 PMP and 2022 PMP. Category CIP Budget Streets $2 000 000 Storm Drainage $150 000 Sanitary Sewer $50 000 Water Utility $100 000 TOTAL $2,300,000 * Initial estimate subject to revisions during the feasibility study Page 3 of 5 The improvements for this project are anticipated to include funding derived from special assessments. The special assessment process must follow the City's current special assessment policy and maintain compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 429. A preliminary assessment roll will be prepared as part of the feasibility report. The policy states that the City will assess fifty percent of the costs associated with bituminous overlay for a typical residential street section on a unit basis. The feasibility report will include a review of special assessment rates applied to past projects in the City of Arden Hills. Staff will review anticipated special assessments with the City Council prior to completing the feasibility report. Preliminary Project Schedule The following is a preliminary project delivery schedule for the 2024 PMP project. A refined project schedule will be provided within the feasibility report. Resolution Ordering a Feasibility Report March 13, 2023 Issue RFP for Feasibility Report March 15, 2023 Approve Professional Services for Feasibility April 10, 2023 Informational Meeting/Open House #1 June 1, 2023 Work Session Discussion June 19, 2023 Accept Feasibility Report, Call for Hearing June 26, 2023 Improvement Hearing, Order Plans & Specs July 10, 2023 Issue RFP for Engineering Design July 11, 2023 Approve Engineering Design Agreement August 14, 2023 Work Session Discussion October 16, 2023 Informational Meeting/Open House #2 November 2, 2023 Work Session Discussion (if -needed) December 18, 2023 Approve Plans, Advertisement for Bids January 8, 2024 Call for Assessment Hearing February 12, 2024 Assessment Hearing February 26, 2024 Accept Bids and Award Construction Contract February 26, 2024 Start Construction April 22, 2024 Construction Final Completion November 15, 2024 Staff would like to discuss consideration of direct selecting engineering consultant Bolton & Menk for professional services to complete the feasibility report, design of project plans and specifications, and construction administration. Typically, the City has chosen the engineering consultant by distributing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to a pool of 5 to 7 candidates, then City staff evaluates and grades each proposal. Bolton & Menk has been the engineering consultant on the 2021 PMP and the Old Snelling Street and Trail Improvement project (2022 PMP). Both projects were very successful and overall City staff received positive feedback from residents involved. City staff has become familiar with Bolton & Menk's team and Bolton & Menk is familiar with the City's PMP project process and Assessment Policy. If directed by Council, staff will reach out to Bolton & Menk to receive a proposal directly. Staff will then review the proposal and negotiate, if necessary, to ensure the City is receiving a quality service at an appropriate rate. If staff would like to consider Bolton & Menk for professional services, an item will be bought to Page 4 of 5 Council as a recommendation for approval at a regular Council meeting. If staff does not recommend approval, staff will begin the RFP process. Financial Impact CIP identifies project funding sources consisting of the PIR fund, other (assessments), sanitary sewer utility, water utility, and surface water utility. As previously stated, the total project cost estimate and proposed project funding sources will be further refined during preparation of the feasibility report. Attachments Attachment A — 2024 PMP CIP page Attachment B — 2024 PMP project corridor map Page 5 of 5 Capital Improvement Plan City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Attachment A 2023 thru 2027 Department Street Department Contact Public Works Director Project # 24-Str-001 Project Name Colleen/Norma/Briar Knoll/Royal Hills/Arden Vista TCAAP No Type Improvement Useful Life 20-25 Category Streets: Reconstruction Priority 2 Very Important Description I Total Project Cost: $2,300,000 ?avement Management Program (PMP) improvements consisting of spot curb repair, resurfacing or full depth reclamation and new bituminous )avement, repairs to storm sewer inlets, drainage improvements, repairs to sanitary sewer manholes and castings, watermain improvements, iydrant and valve repairs. Street segments include Colleen Avenue/McClung (Hamlin to Snelling), Brian Knoll Drive & Ct, Norma Avenue Colleen to Dawn Circle), Arden Vista Ct, Royal Hills (Snelling to Arden View Dr), Kiethson Drive (96 South), and Royal Lane (Norma to Floral) Justification 'avement conditions are deteriorating with condition ratings from 24 to 57. Proposed improvements are necessary to continue safe and reliable treet and utility services. These improvements will address the increasing costs for patching and maintaining highly deteriorated street pavement vithin the City. Expenditures 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total Construction/Maintenance 2,300,000 2,300,000 Total 2,300,000 2,300,000 Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total Capital Improvement Funds 1,000,000 1,000,000 (PIR) Other 1,000,000 1,000,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund 50,000 50,000 Surface Water Mgmt Utility 150,000 150,000 Funds Water Utility Funds 100,000 100,000 Total 2,300,000 2,300,000 Budget Impact/Other Produced Using the Plan -It Capital Planning Software 154 AGENDA ITEM — 3D --ARZEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer Lucas J. Miller, Assistant Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Parkshore Exercise Station Trail Loop — Official Name Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: Council Should Consider Council should consider the Official Name of the nearly complete trail loop and park off of Parkshore Drive. Background/ Discussion Past Discussion Timelines: 10-17-22 Work Session: As part of the Trident Development, Round Lake Senior Living facility, an exercise trail loop (Attachment A) is nearing construction completion. Upon completion and acceptance, the City will assume ownership. Currently, this trail has been referred to as the Parkshore Exercise Station Trail Loop. Per the construction plans, the City is to provide the Park Identification Sign. That being said, staff would like to open up discussion as to what the Official Name should be. Staff has brought this to the PTRC to gather input at the September 20th meeting. The PTRC did not come up with any names but had the idea of having City Staff coordinate a contest at Valentine Hills Elementary and Island Lake Elementary with the winning class being awarded a pizza party. Council direction from this meeting was that for City staff to hold a contest was not feasible and staff was directed to bring the item back to the PTRC members and have them come up with a list of names at their next meeting to bring back for Council to consider. Page 1 of 2 12-19-22 Work Session: Following the November PTRC meeting, the PTRC members came up with the following list: 1. Exercise park and trail 2. Workout park and trail 3. Keep -fit park and trail 4. Fitness Park and Trail 5. Round Lake Fitness Park and Trail 6. For Your Health Park and Trail 7. Name the trail the length of a certain number of laps: 1 mile trail, 2k trail, etc. 8. Round Lake Park and South Shore Trail 9. Boot Camp Park and trail (Fitness Park and Trail and Round Lake Fitness Park and Trail had the most votes from PTRC members.) From this meeting, only a brief presentation took place from PTRC and, due to time constraints, discussion did not take place. 01-17-23 Work Session: Staff brought this item back to Council to discuss, from this meeting Staff was directed to have PTRC choose a name. 01-24-23 PTRC Meeting PTRC revisited the naming of the trail. They narrowed it down to either "Parkshore Fitness Park and Trail" or "Southshore Fitness Park and Trail" for Council to consider. Attachment B, for reference, is the City of Arden Hills approved "GUIDELINES TO ASSIGNING NAMES TO PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES" Attachment C has pictures of the six pieces of exercise equipment installed along the trail. Bud1jet Impact N/A Attachments Attachment A — Trail loop plan view Attachment B — Naming Guidelines Attachment C — Photos of Exercise Equipment Page 2 of 2 Attachment B CITY OF ARDEN HILLS GUIDELINES TO ASSIGNING NAMES TO PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES Naming Procedure -- Any Arden Hills resident, business, or organization may submit site names to the city. -- Submissions for parks, trails, and recreation sites will be given to the Parks Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC) for deliberation. -- After careful consideration the PTRC will submit a recommended name to the City Council for final approval. Naming Criteria -- Geographic names must relate to prominent surrounding features to help the public identify the site's location such as lake names, names of bridges, street names, or community names. -- Historic names must be associated with important events that happened in the area. -- Functional names must provide a link to the activities, services, or programs associated with a site. -- Memorial names are meant to honor those who made significant contributions to society through years of service or donation AND to honor those who have been deceased for at least three years. -- Renaming parks, trails, or recreation sites is generally discouraged as it removes the honor and societal value of the existing designation. Memorials Memorials such as plaques or trees may be donated as a tribute to deceased residents AND to honor those who made significant contributions to society through years of service or donation. Donors must pay the full cost of the memorial procurement, installation, and maintenance. Plaque size and location plan must be approved by the Public Works Director with installation supervised by his/her staff. Attachment C t , l0 unr+vAe it Attachment C Feb 9, 2023 at 11:20:37 AM 1798 Parkshore Dr Arden Hills MN 55112 United States lJ +� Feb 9, 2023 at 11.24.12 AM 1740 Parkshore Dr Arden Hills MN 55112 United States eb 9, 2023 at 11:23:34 A 1-694 ' Arden Hills MN 5511 United State �' � � . � ��®�® �y AGENDA ITEM — 3E -iZR�EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works 2023 Capital Equipment Replacement — 2014 Bobcat Toolcat Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $55,000 $36,914.00 (Toolcat) Equipment Replacement Fund (2023 CIP net cost) $7,013.44 (Snowblower Attach.) Council Should Consider Council should consider: • Purchase of the 2023 Bobcat Toolcat in the amount of $36,914.00 and the Annual Trade Options provided by the vendor. • Purchase of the Bobcat Snowblower Attachment in the amount of $7,013.44 Background/Discussion The 2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes replacement of the 2014 Bobcat Toolcat equipment, Unit 453. (Attachment A) Staff recommends replacement of Unit 453 with a new 2023 Bobcat Toolcat. The Toolcat is used year-round but the primary purpose is sidewalk and trail plowing/snow blowing and it is also used to clean skating rinks. The total cost for the equipment, after trade-in, is $36,914.00 per the quote in Attachment B. The CIP includes a budget of $55,000 for this equipment in 2023. Due to corrosion factors and down time associated with hydraulic leaks and other miscellaneous mechanical breakdowns, staff recommends replacing toolcats during high trade in values and before high costs of ownership from repairs. To provide consistent reliable service to the community, it's important to keep the equipment in good operating order and prevent downtime. Page 1 of 3 Attachment C is a quote to replace a 2010 Bobcat Snowblower attachment for $7,013.44, which is currently not included in the CIP. The net cost of the Bobcat Toolcat is coming in $18,086 under budget and staff is requesting Council consider replacing the 13-year-old snowblower unit using part of the budget. The remaining budget could be retained to help offset the additional costs associated with the replacement of the 2012 Plow Truck. If there is direction to proceed, staff will place the 2010 snowblower unit on auction and anticipates $1,000-$1,500 in return. Budget Impact Attachment A shows the 2023 CIP for Replacement of 2014 Bobcat Toolcat Unit 453. Below is a table that shows the associated parts and labor costs for the life of Unit 453: Date Type of Work Materials [$] Labor [$] 8/7/2014 Corrective $11.66 $46.00 1/25/2016 Corrective $56.91 $50.00 3/4/2016 Corrective $30.52 $50.00 7/14/2016 Corrective $134.50 $275.00 2/24/2017 Corrective $254.39 $118.65 8/16/2017 Corrective $269.35 $286.00 10/24/2017 Corrective $1,947.81 $962.00 12/14/2017 Corrective $41.79 $416.00 4/11/2018 Corrective $180.32 $1,788.75 7/13/2018 Corrective $0.00 $438.00 1/7/2019 Corrective $0.00 $405.00 4/7/2019 Preventative $162.12 $0.00 11/13/2019 Preventative $1,132.78 $418.75 7/2/2020 Corrective $0.00 $225.00 9/11/2020 Corrective $27.54 $560.85 2/26/2021 Preventative $0.00 $180.00 7/7/2021 Corrective $0.00 $45.00 7/22/2021 Corrective $823.50 $1,644.28 11/24/2021 Preventative $217.05 $353.70 1/5/2022 Corrective $0.00 $152.10 4/28/2022 Corrective $2.84 $607.50 6/9/2022 Corrective $241.16 $1,011.15 8/30/2022 Corrective $264.25 $707.75 11/21/2022 Preventative $40.05 $0.00 $5,838.54 $10,741.48 Total: $16,580.02 The cost of Unit 453 was $44,400. With the trade-in value of $33,000 and the repairs and maintenance costs of $16,580.02 over the last 8 1/2 years, the annual cost of Unit 453 worked out to be about $3,292 per year. Page 2 of 3 The vendor, Lano Equipment, Inc. has offered 1 and 2 year trade-in options. There is not a contractual commitment for this offer and can be decided as the end of the first year of the equipment approaches. The City may want to consider one of these options as the program cost may be less than the actual repairs and maintenance cost plus depreciation of the unit. The biggest advantages of having this new piece of equipment annually is to avoid downtime, you can see in the above table that Unit 453 had minimal repairs done within the first 2 years. Also, the equipment is under a 1-year warranty, so any issues and costs will be covered. Actual costs with direction to proceed with all items: 2023 Bobcat Toolcat $69,914.00 Unit 453 Trade-In-$33,000.00 2023 Bobcat Snowblower $7,013.44 Est. auction 2010 snowblower-$1,000.00 $42,927.44 Net cost included in the 2023 CIP: $55,000 Attachments Attachment A: Capital Improvement Program item for 2014 Toolcat Replacement Attachment B: 2023 Bobcat Toolcat quote Attachment C: Bobcat snowblower attachment quote Page 3 of 3 Capital Improvement Plan City of Arden Hills, Minnesota 'roject# 23-Eqp-001 'roject Name Replace 2014 Bobcat Toolcat #453 TCAAP No Description teplace 2014 Bobcat Toolcat #453 (parks). VIN #1278 Sours 1,450 Attachment A 2023 thru 2027 Department Equipment Contact Public Works Director Type Equipment Useful Life 8-10 Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3Important Total Project Cost: $75,000 Justification ,he toolcat is used year round but the primary purpose is sidewalk and trail plowing/snow blowing. The toolcats are also used to clean skating inks. Due to corrosion factors and down time associated with hydraulic leaks and other miscellaneous mechanical breakdowns, staff recommends eplacing toolcats during high trade in values and before high costs of ownership from repairs and down time (every 8 years). 'arts and labor costs: '019 - $ 405 A20 - $ 225 '021 - $2,630 ,his piece of equipment is used year round. Salt has caused corrosion and repairs are becoming more frequent. Expenditures 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 75,000 75,000 Total 75,000 75,000 Funding Sources 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Total Equipment/Building 55,000 55,000 Replacement Fund Trade -In Value 20,000 20,000 Total 75,000 75,000 efficiency resulting in labor savings. Produced Using the Plan -It Capital Planning Software 122 Attachment B Bobcat Product Quotation ® Quotation Number: 31196DO31710 Date: 2023-02-07 08:50:24 Ship to Bobcat Dealer Bill To CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Lano Equipment, Inc, Ramsey, MN CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Attn: JEFF FRID 6140 HIGHWAY 10 NW Attn: JEFF FRID 1245 W HWY 96 RAMSEY MN 55303-4529 1245 W HWY 96 ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 Contact: Scott Fahey ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 Phone: (651) 755-1461 Phone: 763-323-1720 Phone: (651) 755-1461 Email: jfrid@cityofardenhills.org Fax: 763-422-3949 Cellular: 612-223-0510 E Mail: scott_f@lanoequip.com Description Part No Qty Price Ea. Total Bobcat UW56 M1225 1 $56,595.00 $56,595.00 Factory Installed Deluxe Road Package M1225-POI-COI 1 $2,461.00 $2,461.00 Deluxe Road Package includes: Backup Alarm, Turn Signals, Flashers, Tail Lights, Brake Lights, Rear view mirror, Side Mirrors, Horn, Rear work lights, and headlights High Flow Package M1225-RO3-CO2 1 $1,476.00 $1,476.00 29 X 12.5 Turf Tires M1225-M-005 1 $668.00 $668.00 Heavy Duty Battery M1225-RO7-CO2 1 $82.00 $82.00 Attachment Control M1225-RO8-CO2 1 $201.00 $201.00 Power Bob-Tach M1225-R14-0O3 1 $934.00 $934.00 Radio Option M1225-R15-0O2 1 $453.00 $453.00 Traction Control M1225-R16-0O2 1 $463.00 $463.00 Engine Block Heater M1225-AOI-CO2 1 $111.00 $111.00 Interior Trim M1225-AOI-CO4 1 $174.00 $174.00 Dealer Installed Block Heater 7328972 1 $70.00 $70.00 Radio Kit 7439797 1 $562.00 $562.00 Rear Camera Kit, Frame Mounted 7432524 1 $547.00 $547.00 Suspension Seat Kit 7137285 1 $1,194.00 $1,194.00 Rear Window Guard 7150926 1 $798.00 $798.00 Attachments 68" Standard Duty Bucket 7272771 1 $942.00 $942.00 --- Bolt -On Cutting Edge, 68" 7104508 1 $133.00 $133.00 Total of Items Quoted $67,864.00 Dealer P.D.I. $150.00 Freight Charges $1,480.00 Dealer Assembly Charges $420.00 Trade-in 2014 5600 EST 1,600 HRS W BKT SN AHG811278 ($33,000.00) Quote Total - US dollars $36,914.00 Notes: MN STATE CONTRACT RELEASE E-110(5) CONTRACT # 202992 EXPIRES 8/31/23 ANNUAL TRADE OPTION - $5,000 YR + ANY PRICE INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2 YEAR TRADE OPTION - $12,000 YR + ANY PRICE INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR UP TO 400 HOURS PER YEAR USAGE EITHER PARTY HAS THE OPTION TO OPT OUT. All prices subject to change without prior notice or obligation. This price quote supersedes all preceding price quotes. Customer Acceptance: Purchase Order: Authorized Signature: Print: Sign: Date: mom t --w SALES • SERVICE • RENTALS • PARTS www.tristatebobcat.com Ship To: SAME AS BELOW Invoice To: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 1245 W HIGHWAY 96 ARDEN HILLS MN 55112-5743 BURNSVILLE 1200 Highway 13 E Burnsville, MN 55337 (952) 894-0894 (877) 262-2284 LITTLE CANADA 71 Minnesota Avenue Little Canada, MN 55117 (651)407-3727 (877)331-0295 HUDSON 588 Outpost Circle Hudson, WI 54016 (715) 531-0801 (866) 268-2418 Attachment C Branch Date 01 23 2023 Time 15.11:50 O Page 1 Account No. 11074 Phone No. 6517927847 Invoice62. �007638 Ship Via Purchase Order Salesperson RJH EQUIPMENT QUOTE • NOT AN INVOICE Description ** Q U O T E ** EXPIRY DATE: 05/31/2023 Amount Miscellaneous Charges/Credits- FREIGHT AND DEALER PREP Qty: 1 Price: 385.00 385.00 Authorization: PRICED PER STATE BID CONTRACT # T631(5) Subtotal: Quote Total: 7013.44 7013.44 AGENDA ITEM — 3F ,-ARZEN_HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: TCAAP Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration Council requested this item be carried over from the February 13, 2023 City Council meeting. Background N/A Budget Impact N/A Attachment Attachment A: Ramsey County Housing Terms Page 1 of 1 Attachment A From: Robert C. Lux To: Dave Perrault Cc: Matt Mason; Chris Osmundson; Barrett Corwin; Robert C. Lux Subject: FW: voicemail Date: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:54:51 AM Attachments: image001.gna RC HousinaTerms.Ddf Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. David, Attached are the terms the County had shared with me back in May of 2022. You may share this information with the Mayor and Council Members. Best Regards, Robert Lux Alatus, LLC - CEO (0): 612.455.0708 1 (C): 612.991.0381 rcluxl@alatusllc.com I v-card Stay Connected: Alatus LLC I Facebook I Linkedln '5- IDS Center, 80 5 8th Street, Suite 4155 L i c Minneapolis, MN 55402 This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipients) names above. This message maybe attorney -client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: Faust, Martha E <Martha.Faust@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:02 PM To: Robert C. Lux <rclux@alatusllc.com> Cc: Collins, Kari E <Kari.ColIins@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US> Subject: voicemail Thanks for your voice mail and the update on your conversations with Arden Hills. Let's plan to stay with our meeting on May 11 as planned. Sending again this summary of the County's term sheet as of the end of mediation to ensure we all have the same information. Any proposal from the city will be compared to this as a starting point. Martha Faust I Redevelopment Manager Community and Economic Development 15 West Kellogg Blvd. 210 Courthouse Saint Paul, MN 55102 Cell. 651-358-4341 martha.faust(@co.ramsey.mn.us www.ramseycount)j.us Ramsey County RCC Housing Related Project Terms • Total approved Units: 1,460. County is motivated to a project greater than 1,600 units. • Affordable Housing: 22.5% of total units 0 10% of total units at 80AMI or lower (Master Developer provided) 0 12.5% at <50% AMI (Master developer, City and County supported) • The County is willing to strategize additional funding to deepen affordable housing units (e.g., to reduce rent to a level that would be affordable at 30% of AMI). • The City will not collect Met Council SAC charges where credits are present. • The County may proceed with construction of the Spine Road. 554653.1 ,-ARZEN_HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 AGENDA ITEM — 3G TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Ordinance Review for Home Improvement Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration Council may direct Staff to bring back further information and evaluation of existing ordinances regarding home improvements. Background A Councilmember requested this item be brought forward for a preliminary discussion and further direction from the City Council. It was anecdotally communicated to Staff that residents have a hard time getting approved for improvements and renovations to their existing properties due to the City Code being "restrictive". It was also communicated to Staff that corner lots also have difficulty with improvements to their properties. It should be noted that any perceived difficulty would be due to exterior additions to houses, decks, garages, etc., as interior renovations would generally not require approval other than a building permit. In the last three years, the City has received 5 variances for residential improvements/renovations, of these 4 were approved and 1 was denied, see below for a brief summary. • Approved PC22-022 — Highway 96 — House demo and reconstruct (needed for setbacks) • Approved (previously denied) PC22-008 — Valentine Court — Garage addition (needed for setbacks) • Approved PC22-004 — Benton Way — Deck addition (needed for setbacks, landscape coverage, structure coverage and floor area ratio) • Approved PC20-008 — Sandeen Road — House demo and reconstruct (needed for floor area ratio) • Denied PC20-004 — Venus Avenue — Front porch/deck (needed for setbacks, also had previous variance for setbacks) This information would not account for projects that did not end in a formal request (i.e. withdrawn request), projects that were for subdivisions or splits of lots only, or new construction. Page 1 of 2 As corner lots were also mentioned, the most common question for staff pertains to front yard setbacks. The zoning code previously allowed one of the road frontages on a corner lot to be a side yard thereby reducing the setback to 20 feet. Today, the city code requires that corner lots be subject to the minimum front yard setback of 40 feet on both road frontages. Depending on when a property was developed, the existing structure(s) might encroach into the current minimum requirements resulting in the property being legal nonconforming. Legal nonconforming means the property/building/use was legally established at the time of construction, but does not conform to current code requirements. Both State Statute and city code have language pertinent to how a nonconforming structure is maintained and/or increased. A good example of such a case would be Planning Case 22-008, 4073Valentine Court. This case was originally denied but later approved. The agenda items for this case can be found on the City's website Agenda page, the date for approval was June 27, 2022 and the date for denial was May 24, 2021. This agenda item is intended to be informational and preliminary, should Council want to investigate these further they could direct Staff to compare our City Code to other cities and try to peel out what may or may not make the existing City Code restrictive when compared to other cities. Depending on the breadth of what Council would like Staff to investigate, Staff and Council can consider a timeline for further discussion, but is likely between three and six months (ideally, we'll have a Senior Planner on board in the coming months to assist with this project). During discussion of this item, the Community Development Director will also touch on other items that have been on Council and Staff's radar, but are waiting to be fully Staff to be addressed. Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM — 3H ,-ARZEN_HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Climate Action Roadmap Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration Council may direct Staff to bring back further information on a future climate action roadmap for Council review. Background This item was requested by a Councilmember for the agenda; this item is meant as a preliminary item and Council should direct Staff surrounding future work on a climate action roadmap. Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 1 of 1 EN H1LL5 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Re joining Northeast Youth and Family Services Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: N/A $22,000 For Council Consideration AGENDA ITEM — 3I Funding Source: General Fund Council may direct Staff to bring back further information regarding Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS). Background This discussion is intended to be a preliminary discussion on NYFS, should the Council want to discuss further or request information Staff would recommend inviting the President/CEO to come and address the Council at a future work session. From NYFS' website: NYFS is a nonprofit, community -based and trauma -informed mental health and community services organization that has been serving your friends and neighbors in the northeastern suburbs since 1976 In summary, NYFS provides mental health services to the area, as well as, to the school districts. To make these services available to all, they charge based on the client's ability to pay, using a sliding fee scale and utilizing insurance when possible. NYFS is able to provide these services on a sliding scale in -part due to revenue received by its member cities. The City was a member of NYFS through 2021, but decided not to renew its affiliation with the group for 2022. Although the City is not a member of NYFS, the organization would still provide service to Arden Hills residents if needed. The 2021-2022 Report to the Community is attached to this memo (see Attachment A) for reference; also attached is the contract between NYFS and Roseville (see Attachment B). If Page 1 of 2 Arden Hills were to become a member again our contract would be similar. More information about the organization can be found on their website https://www.nyfs.org_/. The current President/CEO of NYFS, Angela Dmello, would be willing to come and address the City Council at a future meeting and answer any additional questions the Council may have about the organization. Budget Impact The anticipated contribution, should the City re join NYFS, would be approximately $22,000, this number is based on population ($2.2351 per resident). Depending on when the City joins, this amount may be pro -rated, that would depend on a future discussion with NYFS. However, the City will need to account for this increase in the 2024 budget should the Council decide to re- join NYFS. Attachment Attachment A: 2021-2022 NYFS Report to the Community Attachment B: Roseville Contract with NYFS Page 2 of 2 � v a j Attachment A NTFS Northeast Youth & Family Services Transforming Lives 2021-2022 Report to the Community Reflections from the President and CEO It is incredible to think about all that Northeast Youth & Family Services (NYFS) has accomplished during the 2021-2022 fiscal year. As we continue to deepen our work, I want to give you a glimpse into how we are adapting and expanding what we offer in response to community and client -driven needs. We've responded to multiple community crises by increasing access to mental health crisis support, offered trainings on the effects of the pandemic on mental health, and crucially, expanded our Diversion Services to include Community Connections. This seven -week program helps youth develop social and emotional skills while expanding their horizons and helping them deepen their commitment to their own futures through service, post -secondary education exposure, career exploration, and mentorship. While the pandemic required us to quickly adapt to new realities and needs, we are now fully integrating these changes into our business model and organizational infrastructure. Most notably, we have embraced the opportunities that telehealth Together we are care offers and see how this option reduces or eliminates barriers of time and transforming transportation while increasing our ability to offer vital mental health support to the lives of our those who might not receive it any other way. clients and Finally, we thoughtfully community, and • and compassionately centered FJ am thrilled to be navigated a change in committed able to do this executive leadership — celebrating the vision work with you. and investment of outgoing President and CEO, Tara Jebens-Singh. I am thankful to have experienced an intentional and collaborative onboarding process which provided a comprehensive understanding of the organization, its current strengths and challenges, and its opportunities for growth. I am grateful for a welcoming, committed, and talented staff and board of directors who are ready to move us into the next chapter of our collective story, grounded in our powerful mission and client - centered values. While past few years at NYFS, and in our community, have been marked by rapid change, one thing remains the same - our commitment to service through collaboration with our partners. Together we are transforming the lives of our clients and community, and I am thrilled to be able to do this work with you. )Ke — Angela Lewis-Dmello, LICSW President & CEO WE HAVE HEART - 2021-2022 REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY Highlights & Outcomes FY 2021-2022 153 72 46 786 clients served 302 21,696 total appointments 9ff Q Diversion 0 Elderly Services Q School Based 0 Clinic Based 0 Community Advocate 496 meetings with 72 Community Advocacy Clients 447 meetings with 153 Diversion clients 657 family and couples therapy sessions with 138 client families 337 Assessments for Mental Health Services 64,000 of care was provided at low or $no cost to clients with financial barriers to care. r Clinic -Based Mental Health Program Healing Happens in Many Ways Trauma -informed and culturally -responsive care recognizes that there is no "one size fits all" version of healing. NYFS's mission is founded on access to critical services and acting as a safety net for our community's mental health needs. We have seen the multi -layered effects of the pandemic on mental health care and are dedicated to meeting current and emerging needs. Because of this, our efforts are increasingly culturally -responsive and trauma -informed as we continue to evaluate and expand our services. Trauma -informed care is all about serving our clients in the context of their lived experiences. Many individuals in our community have chronic stress and histories of trauma. Often these experiences cause mental and physical health concerns. At NYFS, we believe that it is our responsibility to ensure that our services don't cause further harm to any of our clients, not just those that have trauma. This is ongoing work that continues to evolve as we learn more over time. Because of this, our physical clinic spaces in Shoreview and White Bear Lake, the organization's culture, and the program services, policies, and practices themselves are developed to be trauma -informed and are reviewed regularly to reflect current best practices. To be truly trauma -informed requires being culturally responsive — the deep integration of our client's culture into their care. We partner with our clients to provide services in the ways that our clients say best support their healing and growth. This means understanding the context of oppression that many of our clients experience due to their intersecting identities and attending to that in therapy. It also means integrating an understanding of historical and intergenerational trauma on mental health. Many of the reasons people suffer are not due to their own psychology or relationships, but rather, due to the larger socio-cultural context of oppression experienced every day. As Tara Hjelmberg, NYFS Director of Mental Health shares, "Trauma -informed and culturally -responsive empower care allows a space where each individual is seen, heard and understood in their context. It is only within • • • this space that we can assist in the clients' healing and overall wellness." This responsiveness recognizes that there is no "one size fits all" version of healing. What each of us needs is different — and not everyone benefits from a western mental health model of individual weekly therapy sessions. NYFS has been expanding our services to offer different culturally -responsive trauma treatments across the lifespan, including art therapy, and we look forward to expanding our play therapy and horticultural therapy offerings. For those healing services we do not offer at NYFS, we continue to build referral relationships to cultural and community healing practices that serve the whole person. We believe this partnership with our clients encourages creativity and an expansive perspective on healing and recovery. r WE HAVE HEART - 2021-2022 REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY School -Based Mental Health Program Serving Youth in Schools Amidst a Mental Health Crisis Since the start of the pandemic, our community and our country have seen a three -fold increase in the number of youth with diagnosable mental health conditions as well as an increase in the urgency and severity of mental health needs. Our youth have lived through a global pandemic during a crucial stage of their development and are more likely than previous generations to seek mental health care. These factors, combined with the sharp decline in mental health providers — especially those working with youth in nonprofits — has created an unprecedented strain on providers, individuals, and their loved ones. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children's Hospital Association, have declared the state of child and adolescent mental health a national emergency. NYFS School -Based Therapist Carolyn Babekuhl reflects, "Over the past two and a half years, the entire world has experienced trauma from the pandemic, including our children. They lost loved ones, financial stability, and missed significant developmental milestones. These challenges are not addressed just by returning to school in -person. Although students have returned to school, they have not had the opportunity to process these losses and it is expressed through their behavior. It is apparent that we need to prioritize the mental health of our youth at this time." At NYFS, our School -Based Mental Health services offer youth the benefits of developmentally -targeted therapy in a school setting where they have the greatest opportunity to regularly access the help they need or receive support when in crisis. In addition to heightened social and emotional concerns, we are seeing youth with significant (and often deferred) needs including high rates of post -traumatic stress disorder, anxiety with panic attacks, severe depression, and thoughts or plans of suicide. We ensure that youth can access these trauma -informed and culturally - responsive services on a sliding -fee scale. At NYFS we serve three school districts in the Roseville, Mounds View, and White Bear Lake areas, offering care from elementary through high school -age students. We work in meaningful partnership with school staff, supporting the overall mental health needs of youth in the schools we serve. Sometimes this includes active mental health response to school personnel, teachers, and students following a crisis or tragedy. We are there to serve the whole school as comprehensively as we can Even as the need strains our system's ability to ensure care to those who most need it, we feel immense hopefulness as the narrative around youth mental health is changing. And it is the youth who are leading the way in ensuring their own healthy futures. r "The problems we are seeing are greater in both number and intensity. There are more students who are struggling with their mental health, and because there are more needs across the whole system of care, we are filling a gap for youth who actually need a higher level of care." — Steven Lutes, School -Based Mental Health Programs Manager NYFS.ORG 5 Northeast Treatment Services (NETS) Day Treatment Program Intuitive Team -Based Care Northeast Treatment Services (NETS) Day Treatment program serves youth who have mental health needs that cannot be successfully treated in weekly psychotherapy visits, but don't need intensive outpatient programming or the short-term stabilization of a hospital inpatient setting. NETS youth receive longer -term intensive healing support but can remain in their homes and communities while accessing a broad range of services. Day treatment also offers an alternative to residential treatment, which removes youth from their family and community. Most youth that come to our day treatment services face many obstacles, often reporting upwards of seven or eight significant life traumas. They may hold all of that suffering in, or they may push it out into the world through unhealthy coping or harmful behaviors. At NYFS, our day treatment team wants to help these youth every moment that they are with us for services, to learn a better way of engaging their emotions and their relationships so that when they really start to feel better — they have the tools they need to succeed outside of NYFS. NYFS's day treatment services are unique, and so much of this is due to our exceptional team. "As a team we are a cohesive unit. Built on trust," says NETS Therapist LaTarsha Bronaugh. "We strive to be open, understanding, flexible and give one another grace. That transforms into putting client and family needs at the center of their healing journey while at NETS." Similar programs are known for being a training site for new mental health providers — resulting in high turnover of staff. At NYFS, we average 8-10 years on the day treatment team, some staff working in the program for more than 20 years. They have a wealth of experience and a beautiful rhythm in the work together — doing so in compassionate, creative, and intuitive ways. This translates directly to the care they provide. There isn't a crisis they can't handle or a youth with whom at least one of them can connect. They provide seamless trauma -informed, culturally responsive care. r WE HAVE HEART - 2021-2022 REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY Diversion Program & Community Connections Program Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures The Diversion program serves as an alternative to the traditional juvenile justice system for youth who are charged with misdemeanor and status offenses such as theft and alcohol or drug use. With targeted support, they are able to redirect their lives and get back on track. Youth attend educational seminars with their parents or caregivers, perform community service work, and pay restitution. But addressing the offense and its impact is only part of this restorative justice program. NYFS Diversion Coordinator Jackie and is much less likely to reoffend in the future. We are here to help them change the trajectory of their lives. We focus on their future, not just on their past offense." Successful graduates of the Diversion program who still need additional support can enroll in our new Community Connections program - a seven week group - based experience for youth that builds social skills, self- • •_nc confidence, and resilience r r 7,::z:i rip n r, p" esilience through career exploration, volunteer activities, and connections with other McGovern says that working with youth to learn what is going on in their life is key to understanding what circumstances may have contributed to the negative behavior. "By addressing the root causes of the behaviors, the youth is able to receive the help they need community service organizations. The program aims to help address risk factors that youth face by providing youth with alternatives through positive social interaction with peers, interaction with positive adults in the community, and access to community resources. V "The last few years have been really tough on our youth. A lot of those connections, and feeling like being a part of a community, have gone away. Youth and their families are really struggling and that's why programs like these are so important." — Erika Scheider, Roseville Chief of Police NYFS.ORG Community Advocate Program Bridging the Gap Between Law Enforcement and Community Support NYFS Community Advocate Joshua Grant has a unique and necessary role in the communities we serve. He works with residents who have been involved with local law enforcement but have needs that cannot be sufficiently addressed by law enforcement alone. "Officers are on the scene when there is a crisis, and we definitely need their help in those moments," he says. "But they are not trained or equipped to assess and work on the issues that led up to the crisis point. Often these problems are multi -layered and require long hours of work to rebuild trust and help residents get and stay connected with additional support systems in our community." Joshua works with individuals and families experiencing chronic mental health issues, family instability, complex medical needs, chemical dependency and other problems that require a high degree of care. By addressing these underlying issues, the need for law enforcement intervention is greatly reduced and officers are freed up to spend more time on other work while the resident receives compassion the more intensive trust support they need. The Community Advocate Program currently serves the cities of Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville, St. Anthony and White Bear Lake and has been well received by residents and law enforcement. "We believe in the co -production of public safety," says Tony Paetznick, New Brighton Director of Public Safety. "We all have a role to play in making our communities a better place to live and work."v WE HAVE HEART - 2021-2022 REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY NYFS Staff Carolyn Babekuhl, LICSW School Based Therapist Laurie Berlin, LMFT School Based Therapist Latarsha Bronaugh, LPCC NETS Day Treatment Therapist Miaa Bulchaa Senior Program Assistant Mai Chang, Senior Program Assistant Joshua Grant Community Advocate Denise Greene Building & Office Manager David Gullickson Accounting Assistant Tara Hjelmberg, LMFT Director of Mental Health NYFS Board of Directors OFFICERS Wayne Groff, Chair Rep: City of Roseville Jack Serier, Past Chair Rep: Community Molly Larson Program Assistant Angela Lewis-Dmello, LICSW President & CEO Steven Lutes, LICSW School Based Services Manager Amelia Maijala Marketing, Communications and Development Specialist Samuel McGinnity Diversion Community Connections Coordinator Jackie McGovern Community Services Manager Ben Moburg NETS Day Treatment Practitioner MEMBERS Judy Cognetta Rep: North Oaks Mariel Culhane Rep: Community Cory Springhorn, Vice Chair Monica Roth Day Rep: City of Shoreview Rep: Community Scott McCune, Treasurer Rep: White Bear Township Desaree Crane, Secretary Rep: Community Jennifer Fink Rep: City of New Brighton Nicole Joy Frethem Rep: Ramsey County Roxanne Grove Rep: City of Lauderdale Heidi Hughes Rep: City of White Bear Lake Jan Jenson Rep: Village of St. Anthony Laurie Moser, LMFT NETS Day Treatment Manager Alex Moti Information Analyst Kathryn Muellner, LICSW NETS Day Treatment Therapist Andy Peach, NETS Day Treatment Practitioner Angie Siegle-Pugh, LMFT REACH Therapist Jocelyn Thoemke, LMFT, ATR-BC Clinic Based & Art Therapist Becky Tjornhom Front Office Curtis Johnson Rep: Roseville School Board Lisa Laliberte Rep: Community Jennifer Lodin Rep: Mounds View Public Schools Monica Lynghaug Rep: Community Gary Meehlhause Rep: City of Moundsview Teresa Miller Rep: City of Little Canada John Skillings Rep: Community NYFS.ORG 9 Donors: FY 2021-2022 Thank you to our Donors! American National Bank Frandsen Bank & Trust Amelia Maijala Mary Anders Morris Amy Frane-Gower Manitou Fund Barbara Anderson Bob Freed Carol Marchel Bonnie Anderson Susan Gaertner John & Connie Marty Andersen Corporate Foundation James & Joan Gardner Mary McDowall Kay Andrews Susan Gehrz Tam McGehee Anonymous Ellen Gevers Bryan McGinnis Dean & Debra Armstrong Kitty Gogins Gary & Kim Meehlhause Robert Ash God and Associates, LLC Kelly Merriman Lynn Ault Greater Midwest Bruce & Leeann Meyer Steve Bachman Financial Group David Morris Thomas & Kathleen Baldwin Lorna Green Anne & David Myers Mary Bandt Roger & Mindy Greiling Lindsay Nauen Bob Benke Barbara Grengs Northeast Bank Berger Allied Moving Georgeann Hall Northeast Metro & Storage, Inc. James Halverson Golden K Kiwanis Joan Bergeson Mary Harrington John and Marla Ordway Kent Bergh Dennis Harris Charitable Lead Trust Laurie Berlin Scott Henry Phyl & Doug Ostergren Geraldine Blanski Kathleen Heyman Otto Bremer Trust Steve Bloom Nancy Hite Mary Ann Palmer Majorie Boening Michael Hinz Gloria & Warren Pederson Beverly Bosse Geoff Hollimon The Peter J. King Pamela Brabeck Sharon Hood Family Foundation Michael Bradley Alan Hull Mary Peterson David Bruce Peggy Huot Hansen The Phillips Family Fund Robert Cardinal Paul & Denise Jacobsen Lee & Sandi Poppe Kathy and Paul Ciernia The Jebens-Singh Family Press Publications Charitable Gift Fund Fredrick Kaiser Urho & Pamela Rahkola Thomas Clark Raye Kanzenbach Ramsey County Children's Charles &Sharon Clysdale Charles Keffer Mental Health Collaborative Coldwell Banker Realty Barbara Kellett Victoria Reinhardt Cares Foundation Bruce Robb Kirsten Dawson Kevin Kelly Daniel Roe Monica Roth Day Jane Klehr Roseville Area Greg & Frances Knothe Community Foundation Dena DeGroat - Thrivent Financial Debra Kohen Kennon Rothchild, Jr. Steven Dehler Kohli Real Estate Group Saint Paul & Minnesota The Dellwood Foundation, Inc George Krienke Foundation Eric &Teri Eberhardt Kathryn Kufus Andy & Virginia Sall Kevin Edberg Marjorie Kulseth Susan Sands Erickson, Bell, Beckman Karin Larson Jane Scheidnes and Quinn, PA Victoria Larsen Marilynn Scherrer Jason & Jessica Etten Barbara Leary Thomas & Lana Schuette David Evans Don Lee Scientific Molding Corp, Ltd Jane Eyestone Roger & Ellen Lillemoen Carol Seidenkranz First Resource Group Amanda Little Donald Severson Steve Forshay The Lutheran Church SMC Ltd. Bill Foussard of the Resurrection Carol Sletner Howell Smith John & Marsha Soucheray Florence Sprague Cory Springhorn St. Michael's Lutheran Church Mark Stange Andrew Stark June Stewart Anthony Stieber Strategic, Consulting and Coaching, LLC Brian Strub Judy Stuthman Suburban Ramsey Family Collaborative Colin Sundeen John Suzukida Jeanne Szurek Techie Dudes Ann Thonet Gerry Urban Urban's Farm and Greenhouses, LLC. Vadnais Heights Community Foundation Vadnais Heights Lions Club Mary Kay VonDeLinde John Wazlawik James Weichert Teresa Wernecke Pat Whelan Adrienne Wickstrom Roger Williams Jodi Wolkerstorfer Thank you for your support! Please accept our sincere apologies if we omitted or misspelled your name. Notify us of corrections by calling (651) 379-3447 MEETS STAND IDS 10 WE HAVE HEART — 2021-2022 REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY Financial Position: FY 2021-2022 Statement of Activities Without Donor SUPPORT AND REVENUE Support: Grants and Contributions $ 278,281 Municipality Contract Revenue 502,435 Employee Retention Credit 220,576 Loan Forgiveness 430,776 Total Support 1,432,068 Revenue: Program Service Fees 1,485,531 Rental Income 474,245 Investment Loss (11,713) Total Revenue 1,948,063 Net Assets Released from Restrictions 15,000 Total Support and Revenue 3,395,131 EXPENSES Program Services: Mental Health 1,982,278 Community Services 270,063 Total Program Services 2,252,341 Supporting Services: Management and General 962,748 Fundraising 97,592 Total Supporting Services 1,060,340 Total Expenses 3,312,681 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS 82,450 Net Assets - Beginning of Year - as Restated 1,391,220 NET ASSETS - END OF YEAR $ 1,473,670 5% REVENUE Individuals: $122,807.25 Municipalities: $408,547.80 Contract and Grants: $988,742.65 Third Party Billing and Fees: $628,013.64 Occupancy: $474, 245.01 3% With Donor (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) 15,000 YEAR ENDED ]UNE 30, 2022 Total $ 278,281 502,435 220,576 430,776 1,432,068 1,485, 531 474,245 (11,713) 1,948,063 1,982,278 270,063 2,252,341 962,748 67,450 1,406,220 $1,473,670 EXPENDITURES Mental Health: $1,982,278.00 Community Services: $270,063.00 Management and General: $962,748.00 Fundraising: $97,592.00 NYFS.ORG • NYFS Northeast Youth & Family Services 3490 Lexington Ave N, Suite 205 Shoreview, MN 55126 NYFS is here for you, because of you. ©2022 Northeast Youth & Family Services. All rights reserved. NYFSNortheast Youth Family Services AGREEMENT 1. PARTIES Attachment B This agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Roseville, Minnesota ("Municipality") and Northeast Youth and Family Services ("NYFS"). 2. RECITALS a. NYFS is a non-profit social service agency whose mission is to meet the unmet developmental needs of at -risk youth and families within their community environment with emphasis on providing services through collaboration and coordination with existing community resources. These services are available to youth and families residing in the northern suburbs of Ramsey County, including, but not limited to, the municipalities which are signatory to agreements which are identical to this Agreement ("participating municipalities") and students and families from Independent School Districts 621, 622, 623, 624, 282, and 832. b. Through this Agreement the Municipality intends to contract with NYFS to provide such services to its residents and to act as a sponsor of NYFS by providing financial support, a method to establish appropriate services to be provided and policy guidance for its activities. c. This Agreement shall be used as the formal agreement between NYFS and each of the participating municipalities. This Agreement is intended to continue the spirit of cooperation and collaboration in the provision of social services between the Municipality and NYFS. 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS In consideration of the mutual understandings of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows: a. Prior Agreements Cancelled. By execution of this Agreement any prior agreements and amendments thereto between the parties are hereby cancelled. b. Services Provided. NYFS shall provide the Municipality and its residents with youth and family programs set forth in the Addendum attached hereto. c. Principles of Service and Program Establishment and Operations. On a yearly basis and prior to submission of its annual budget, as provided for hereafter, NYFS shall: d. Fundin Report regarding proposed changes in services and programs to the Municipality; and Establish a fair and open bidding/request for proposal (RFP) process to contract, manage or provide such services and programs, which are not directly provided by NYFS staff. In addition to the participating municipalities' share of the annual budget, funds for the operation of NYFS will be raised by NYFS endeavoring to secure user fees, grants and appropriations from private organizations, the State of Minnesota, Federal and County agencies, and other legal and appropriate sources. The Municipality shall pay annually to NYFS the base amount listed in Exhibit A. This base amount will be adjusted annually for inflation/deflation based on the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and municipal population estimates based on MN State Demographic Center. Any adjustment in the payment beyond those indicated by reference to the CPI-U shall require approval of each of the participating municipalities. iii. Any new municipality joining into this agreement will pay a base amount annually to NYFS that is on par with the amount paid by current participating municipalities. iv. Amounts payable by the Municipality shall be paid to NYFS on or before January 30t" of each year, or at a date mutually agreed upon by both parties, to cover the Municipality's share for that year. e. Board Representation. The Municipality shall have the right to NYFS Board Representation of City Council, staff or community members (as designated by the Municipality and approved by NYFS Board) on the Board of Directors as either a Board Member or Board Advisor. f. Further Obligations of NYFS. In addition to the obligations set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, this Agreement is further contingent upon NYFS doing the follows: The Bylaws of NYFS shall be amended to add provisions requiring an open process for contracting services as provided for in paragraph C.2., above, and prohibiting NYFS from supporting or opposing individual candidates for election to public office in any of the participating municipalities; and adding the requirement that IRS 501.C3 status be maintained. On or before June 30, of any year NYFS shall submit the proposed city budgeted amount for the subsequent year. iii. On or before November 30, of any year NYFS shall submit a written report to the Municipality including an Annual Report, the audited financial statement, and a program specific summary of services provided to the municipality; in addition, 30 days from the end of each calendar quarter, NYFS shall submit a written report to the participating municipality. iv. Periodically advising the Municipality of services available through NYFS to the Municipality's residents; V. Establishing a sliding scale for services available through NYFS to the Municipality's residents and periodically advising the Municipality of such fees; vi. Providing other reasonable information requested by the Municipality; vii. Purchasing a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,500,000.00, naming the Municipality as an additional insured and providing a copy of the insurance certificate evidencing such policy to the Municipality; viii. Provide the Municipality with a copy of its Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, Amendments thereto, and the IRS tax exempt status letter; ix. NYFS shall defend and indemnify the Municipality from any and all claims or causes of actions brought against the Municipality of any matter arising out of this Agreement or the services provided pursuant to this Agreement; and, X. Without the written approval of the Municipality, NYFS will not enter into any agreement with any other municipality which differs from the terms and conditions of this Agreement. g. Term. The term of this agreement will be through December 31, 2023. Unless either party gives at least 6 months written notice of its intent to cancel this Agreement effective December 31 of the year in which the notice is made, NYFS will continue to provide services to the Municipality if a successor agreement has not been executed prior to the end of the term. h. (A) Distribution of Assets Upon Dissolution. If NYFS ceases to operate, the Board of Directors will do one of the following: Give the assets to one or more non-profit agencies providing similar social services in the northern suburbs of Ramsey County; or, Form a new Foundation to fund appropriate social service programming in the northern suburbs of Ramsey County. The final Distribution of Assets Plan must be approved by the Ramsey County District Court. (B) Deviation from the Mission. If the City Council determines that NYFS has materially deviated from its mission (See II. Recitals, A.), the City Council may ask the NYFS Board of Directors to consider dissolving the agency and liquidating the assets. The Board will do one of the following: iii. Consider the request and by a majority vote deny it. iv. Consider the request and by a majority vote agree to modify the programs to be consistent with the mission. V. Consider the request and by a majority vote agree with the request and move to dissolve the agency and liquidate the assets. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on this date set forth below. MUNICIPALITY City of Roseville By: Elected Official Its: Clerk/Manager/Administrator Dated: NYFS Northeast Youth & Family Services 0 President/CEO Its: Chair of the Board of Directors Dated: 12/2022 N L N 4-J .0 N > E L ZW LL 40M z m N 0 LO o LO O O m Cl) U') n 00 V! O N N n N 00 M n 00 LO a) O 00 CO) O N 00 i a) (V > O ❑ b4 ER EA ER EA 69 y❑ O LO O LO O O M M LO n 00 M N N is a) 0. n 00 r in m � ti O V (� Cl) M O W (M 0 C= O N con M 00 n N r N N O Q M d O 0 C N O 7 E a= E O L O U 0 O m ffi EA ER EA EA Qw N n m M M CO CO Ln O1 O O n O CO to N CO U) n r n N (O CO M O 00 O) n n (O M i N O LO 00 (`') M O V 00 N LO n CO co M M LO LO n n O O n LO N n V O 0) O V N a7 00 M O O M LO ( r N V M V O Cl) (D r N V (.0 r V r r N V r M La > = O O ❑ ER Ef! 691 (f) 6F3 Eft EF) 6F3 (H (f) ER (f! Vf l Eft (f3 fH d LO CO n LO LO U') LO O O LO W M 0) N❑ n N O) LO CO O O N 00 r a1 O A a (6 M 0) co V LO LO n LO O co o 00 LO n L V () N rCO N n n (O LO(o 00 O N ao r Ln O n N n O) rn O rn n n O n n C 0 �2 M O O M r (D O (0 V LO C 0 N N LO r 00 N LO N LO N UN �0 O O N N •� G � 0 •E Q o 3 -0 Ln r2 R 00 O C m (n Vi b9 ka (fl ffi tq (fl fA (F) ELT Efi (f3 ELT 64 69 0) O O O O O O O O O O O O T U V O rO O O LO oc O r LO 0)C > M (C N Q N N 0 ON N 0) coLO = G (6 N N =_ 7 E N E O O N () (» (» (» (» (» esr (D 5 V n (O r M (O V r V N N M N O CD(O 00 LO CD O O V m 00 O V O (0 n N 00 M N m r (0 LO LO LO (fl O 00 00 It O N n Cl) LO 00 00 m 0 co 0) LO N N N n V O O (fl aD V LO n (D w N M V (C O) n (C LO cc O LO r 00 (O j N n n O It 00 � r M CO n N N '�T n O r N N V n LO N LO N CD le E 0 O_ N E V O U 3 � GS Q�l U=� 691 V� 69� 691 vc) V=� 691 69 69. 691 69 69. 4 Y 0 c cm L aNi N C/) 0) 7 N LL } Z T LL O E O 0 r O 11 O2f Q Q O. 7 N r w O m t o _00 a) 0 0) >, w N io _0) N m m (n rn coY O 0 0) 00 N > ❑ m N — N. L V O U 0 m O > c O L to C > O a H 0) _ O y0 75 Z 'L LL J 2 Z Z of _ (n (n _ m 22 > 0 >m > J H NYFSNortheast Youth & Family Services Contracted Services Mental Health Services: • Shoreview and White Bear Lake Mental Health Clinics —licensed mental health staff provide therapy for the emotional health of children, teens, and adults. • School -Based Mental Health — licensed mental health staff provide onsite therapy in the schools for the emotional health of students within Roseville, Mounds View, and White Bear Lake school districts. Community Service Programs: Youth Diversion — a coordinated range of services for youth who have committed minor offenses (e.g. shoplifting, chemical/alcohol use, vandalism) to help them focus on positive behavior and prevent recidivism. • Community Connections — This seven -week program helps youth develop social and emotional skills while expanding their horizons and helping them deepen their commitment to their own futures through service, post- secondary education exposure, career exploration, and mentorship. Non -Contracted Services Mental Health Services: • Northeast Educational & Therapeutic Services (NETS) — provides therapy and academic support for youth in grades 6-12 with severe mental illnesses who cannot function in traditional school environments. Community Service Programs: Community Advocate — This program serves people who have been involved with local law enforcement but have needs that cannot be sufficiently addressed by law enforcement alone. This can include: mental health issues, family instability, medical care and other needs. Addressing these underlying issues reduces the need for law enforcement intervention in the future. ,-ARZEN_HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: No Mow May Discussion Budgeted Amount: N/A For Council Consideration Actual Amount: N/A AGENDA ITEM — 3J Funding Source: N/A Council may direct Staff to bring back further information on No Mow May. Background Last year, the City Council indicated a desire to discuss No Mow May for 2023. No Mow May is a trend among cities to allow for longer than typically allowed grass in May to benefit pollinators. Here is a blurb from Bee City USA's website: Why mow less in the spring? The start of the growing season is a critical time for hungry, newly emerging native bees. Floral resources may be hard to find, especially in urban and suburban landscapes. By allowing lawns to grow longer, and not applying pesticides to flowering plants in your lawn, you can provide nectar and pollen to help your bee neighbors thrive. Mowing less is just one thing we can do protect pollinators. The full information from Bee City USA can be found here: https://beecitnsa.org/no-mow- may/#:—:text=No%20Mow%20May%20is%20a,forage%20for%20early°/o20season%20pollinators A number of other cities in the area did No Mow May in 2022, these include New Brighton, Vadnais Heights, Mounds View, and Shoreview passed a resolution to do No Mow May in 2023 did receive feedback from the other cities that there were unintended consequences, such as, an influx of lawn waste in June, some residents never quite coming back into conformance with the ordinance (i.e. higher code enforcement complaints in June) and difficulty for Public Works Departments to "catch up" with City maintained areas. The City's current ordinance restricts vegetation growth in excess of eight inches. Page 1 of 2 Should the City want to consider No Mow May, it will need to consider the following: • Will this include City maintained areas, parks, fields, boulevards, etc.? • Will the City provide signage for residents participating? • Timing of approval, if Council wants to move forward it should approve this at the first meeting in March to allow for inclusion in the City's March newsletter for communication. The memo and resolution approved by Shoreview is attached for reference (see attachment A), we would need to adopt something similar if we move forward with No Mow May. Budtet Impact N/A Attachment Attachment A: Example of No Mow May Agenda Item and Resolution (Shoreview) Page 2 of 2 Attachment A Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Krista Billerbeck , Natural resources coordinator DATE: December 5, 2022 SUBJECT: Resolution to support No Mow May initiative ITEM 1o.b NUMBER: SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS REQUESTED MOTION To adopt Resolution No. 22-91 supporting No Mow May initiative. INTRODUCTION The council, residents, and the Environmental Quality Committee (EQC) have expressed interest in participating in the No Mow May initiative. Staff are coordinating this effort to participate in May 2023 and are asking the council to support the program by adopting Resolution 22-91. The No Mow May initiative encourages property owners to refrain from mowing their lawns during the month of May in order to increase habitat and food available for early season pollinators. The resolution temporarily suspends the section of city code related to lawn height, allowing residents to let their lawns grow for the month of May without violating code. DISCUSSION The No Mow May initiative has been growing across the country in response to the ongoing threats to pollinator populations. Many insects overwinter in the ground and in leaves or other plant material. As they emerge in the spring, they are in need of food and habitat. Reducing mowing during this time increases available food and habitat, promoting the survival and increased diversity of many insect species. In addition to the specific benefit to many insects, the initiative also raises awareness about pollinator populations and encourages residents to reconsider lawn spaces. Traditional lawn care often involves maintaining grass at short heights and treating with pesticides. These practices lead to a lack of habitat and harmful impacts to insects from chemicals. There are many ways to improve this space for pollinators and other wildlife, from mowing less frequently, to reducing chemical use, to planting more native plants. Converting lawn or portions of a lawn to native plantings eliminates the need for mowing and provides improved food and habitat. Residents interested in participating in No Mow May are encouraged to do so. There is no registration required. The enforcement of City Code 211.o6o(C) will temporarily be suspended for the program, specifically that `grass plots and lawn areas, including any contiguously abutting street boulevard areas, shall not exceed nine inches in height.' The program will run from May 1st through June loth, allowing residents the first part of June to begin mowing again and come into compliance. RECOM NDATION It is recommended that the council adopt the attached resolution supporting the No Mow May initiative and temporarily suspending enforcement of City Code 211.o6o(C) from May ist to June loth. ATTACHM NTS Resolution 22-91 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREVIEW, MINNESOTA HELD DECEMBER 5, 2022 * * * * * * * * * * * * Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Shoreview, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the Shoreview City Hall in said City on DECEMBER 5, at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: and the following members were absent:. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOULTION NO.22-91 RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT NO MOW MAY INITIATIVE WHEREAS, pollinator populations are threatened due to many factors, including habitat loss and pesticide use; and WHEREAS, pollinators serve a necessary role as pollinators of many plants, including agricultural plants such as many fruits, vegetables, and nuts; and WHEREAS, early season food sources are necessary for pollinators; and WHEREAS, reducing the amount of mowing during the early growing season can increase available floral resources for forage; and WHEREAS, the City of Shoreview encourages the use of pollinator friendly lawn care practices; and WHEREAS, the City of Shoreview became a Pollinator Friendly Community in 2018; and WHEREAS, No Mow May is an initiative that encourages property owners to limit lawn mowing during the month of May. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHOREVIEW, M I N N ESOTA, THAT: 1. The City of Shoreview recognizes No Mow May to create additional early season food and habitat for pollinators and other insect species in lawns and encourages property owners to refrain from mowing during the month of May. 2. The enforcement of City Code 211.060(C) shall temporarily be suspended from May 1st to June 101h, specifically that "grass plots and lawn areas, including any contiguously abutting street boulevard areas, shall not exceed nine inches in height," permitting all property owners who wish to participate in this initiative to voluntarily delay mowing until June, which may result in lawn height exceeding the established ordinance of nine inches. The Minnesota State Mandate regarding the management of noxious weeds will continue to be enforced. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this Sth day of December, 2022. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF RAMSEY CITY OF SHOREVIEW I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Manager of the City of Shoreview of Ramsey County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of said City Council held on the St" day of December 2022, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript there from insofar as the same relates to approving the No Mow May initiative. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager and the corporate seal of the City of Shoreview, Minnesota, this 61" day of December. Brad Martens City Manager SEAL ,-ARZEN_HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 AGENDA ITEM — 3K TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Gathering Place Parking Lot Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $280,000 (50% City share) TBD PIR For Council Consideration Council may direct Staff to bring back further information on the Gathering Place Parking Lot status. Background Last year, the City had multiple conversations surrounding the parking lot owned by the Gathering Place Church, which also provides parking for Hazelnut Park via a Maintenance and Use Agreement. The previous discussion agenda items are attached under Attachment A for reference, they provide more detail and background on the previous discussions. In summary, in 2011, the City entered into a Maintenance and Use Agreement with the owner of the parking lot to allow members of the public to use the parking lot to access Hazelnut Park, and in -return the City would assist with minor maintenance of the parking lot. Since the signing of the agreement, the parking lot has deteriorated to the point where it needs to be reconstructed. The agreement does call for the parties to bargain in good faith when reconstruction is needed. Following multiple conversations with the City Council and representatives of the Church, the below terms have been ironed out and are believed to be ready for approval by both the City and Church. • The City will lead a reconstruction project of the parking lot (planned for 2024) • The Church and City will split the total cost 50:50; should the Church be unable to pay for the entire project when due, the City will set up a payment plan for the Church over the length of the agreement • The Church will allow for approximately 28 percent of the parking lot to be turned over to green space • Other provisions identified in the agreement regarding maintenance will still apply Page 1 of 2 A draft agreement was prepared previously and is attached to this memo (see Attachment B). The two changes from when Council would have seen this previously is the reduced interest rate being charged to the Church (two percent, previous was two percent plus prime), this change is included in this draft of the agreement. The other change NOT present in the draft agreement is the greenspace provision. While the Church would still intend to turn a portion of the parking into greenspace, the Church would like to retain ownership of the greenspace. They would agree to keeping it greenspace for the life of the agreement (20 years), and for mutually agreed upon uses of the green space. Budget Impact The estimated cost of the project is $280,000, but half of the project will be paid for by the Church either upfront or spread over multiple years. Actual cost will be determined during the bidding process, design on the project would begin this year with a bid going out in early 2024. Attachment Attachment A: Background Memos on Parking Lot Reconstruction Attachment B: Draft Agreement Parking Lot Page 2 of 2 ,-ARZEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 18, 2022 Attachment A TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Hazelnut Park Parking Lot Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration The City Council should consider providing direction on the Hazelnut Park Parking Lot project. Background The City Council received an update on the Hazelnut Park Parking Lot at their June work session, that memo is attached for reference and background. Following that discussion, Staff was instructed to engage with the Gathering Place and work through high-level details of reconstructing the parking lot. Staff has identified what it believes are the main deal points (see below) that are agreeable to both the Gathering Place and the City. Should the Council agree, Staff will move forward with finalizing an agreement for future approval between the Gathering Place and the City, this agreement would replace the existing one: • The Gathering Place will turnover approximately 28% of the existing parking lot to the City for parkland (future use will be determined by the City) • Members of the public will continue to have the right to park in the lot to utilize the adjacent park, trails, and other public facilities • The City will lead a project to have the remaining portion of the parking lot rehabilitated • The full cost of the project will be split 50/50 between the City and the Gathering Place (total currently estimated at $245,000); the Gathering Place may choose to have their portion of the project assessed over a pre -determined length of time or pay at time after completion • For a period of 20 years, the City will crack -seal and/or sealcoat the parking lot on a pre- determined schedule • For a period of 20 years, the City will annually fill minor potholes in the parking lot that can be reasonably filled as determined by the City Page 1 of 2 • For a period of 20 years, the City will issue payment to the Gathering Place in the amount of $1,500 for snow plowing • For a period of 20 years, should any maintenance activities outside of the crack -sealing, sealcoating and/or minor pothole filling arise, the Gathering Place will be responsible for addressing them in a timely fashion to ensure the usability and long-term life of the parking lot • At the end of the 20 years, the City and Gathering Place may mutually enter into another maintenance and use agreement, should they so choose If the Council finds these deal points agreeable, the City will work with the Gathering Place and City Attorney on drafting a new maintenance and use agreement for approval. Budtet Impact The City already has the full -cost of the parking lot programmed into the CIP for reference. The cost of the crack -sealing and sealcoating will be rolled in with the City's other projects through the Coon Rapids JPA. Attachment Attachment A: June 20, 2022 Work Session Memo Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM —1E EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Hazelnut Park Parking Lot Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration The City Council should consider providing direction on the Hazelnut Park Parking Lot project. Background The parking lot at Hazelnut Park, which is owned by the Gathering Place Church, is in disrepair. The City currently has a maintenance and use agreement with the church to fill potholes on the site and in exchange, users of Hazelnut Park can utilize the site for parking. However, the condition of the pavement is deteriorating beyond the point of routine maintenance and will need to be reconstructed. There is a clause in the current agreement that both parties will work together to reconstruct the parking lot. Based on previous discussions, if the church would consider giving up portions of the parking lot for additional greenspace, the City may consider financing options on the parking lot. The site has approximately 139 spaces and per zoning needs a minimum of 50. Based on the most recent aerial, the graphic (existing layout) on page 2 illustrates existing conditions and potential option for redesign (note: this not based on a formal design, there may be implications regarding storm water, design, etc. that could impact the project. The site could retain the red boxes and maintain 81 parking spaces that could service both the church and the park, and return the green box to parkland giving up about 46 spaces. The numbers are slightly off from the total 139 as there may be flexibility with some of the stalls. The parking lot is approximately 53,000 square feet, the area in green represents about 15,000 square feet of space. The proposed reduction would be approximately 28 percent. This proposed reduction still allows for ample parking for both the church and park, and maintains the two driveway accesses off of New Brighton Road. If the desire would be to reduce the parking lot further, it would likely impact the two entrances. The cost to reduce the lot and reconstruct the remaining portion is estimated to be $250,000, this would not include enhancements, such as, islands, lighting or other improvements. Page 1 of 4 The City Attorney has been looped in and an agreement could be drafted that would allow for the City to reconstruct the parking lot and assess a portion back to the church. Should we move forward, next steps would be to enter into an agreement with the church and have a consultant begin design. Existing layout: Visual representation of proposed changes (not to scale and not reflective of stall count): Page 2 of 4 `•'f�`.�., 'r •�J„d�-xy +c;E, 'h3,;.?., ��Y-n k".5 `.:x �•a • - A Budget Impact N/A Attachment Attachment A: Maintenance and Use Agreement Page 4 of 4 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT CITY OF ARDEN HILLS TRINITY LUTHERAN OF LAKE JOHANNA PARKING LOT 1.0 Parties. This Joint Use Agreement ("Agreement") is dated the �� day of 2011 and is entered into by and between the City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota statutory city ("City") and Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna, a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Trinity"). 2.0 Recitals. A. Trinity is the owner of Lot 1, Block 1, Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna Addition ("Trinity Property"). A portion of the Trinity Property has been improved with a bituminous driveway access to New Brighton Road and with a bituminous parking surface (both herein "Parking Lot"), as illustrated on Exhibit A attached and incorporated. B. The City, concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, has purchased Lot 2, Block 1, Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna Addition from Trinity ("City Property") and has executed a Joint Use Agreement, a copy of which is attached and incorporated as Exhibit B. C. The City owns, maintains and allows public use of Hazelnut Park which is located adjacent to the City Property. 3.0 Terms and Conditions. As part of the consideration for the City's purchase of the City Property, the Parties agree as follows: A. City Obligations. The City shall: 1. Pay Trinity $1,500 for the snowplowing of the Parking Lot surface. The payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice for such services from Trinity but in no event shall such payment be made before November I" of each year. 2. In the Spring of each year, fill those Parking Lot potholes, as the City's Director of Public Works determines to be necessary. 3. Annually sweep those portions of the Parking Lot surface which the City's Director of Public Works determines will not be further damaged by the actions of the sweeper. 4. Restripe the Parking Lot surface after it has been seal coated by Trinity. B. Trinity Obligations. Trinity shall: Seal coat the Parking Lot as it determines to be necessary. Trinity shall notify the City by July ls` of the year proceeding the year in which Trinity intends to seal coat the Parking Lot surface so that the City can include the cost of restriping the Parking Lot surface in its budget for the year in which the seal coating occurs. 2. Snowplow the Parking Lot surface. C. Reconstruction. The parties acknowledge that the Parking Lot surface will have to be reconstructed at some future date and the parties agree to bargain in good faith on the allocation of the cost of that future reconstruction. Z d ��f �f`Ey � s� �■[�f��Y:Iip• [(p����4rr4�%¢jrt�F € sQ iea ryQ O b � �5Q ��5 �;raF�� 3^ �)Fw�ljli [�✓�'{�..'. if Ci�°�� t� ®6 �W�28 P PP 0 w �i [IG;����� �z� �i�i=°[� � [r''.,i.�+ii�f�� i.>pat.,w 3 �� ���ggi tF 9A�°• r gs Fi � ;� �zi�}, l�i(zylR3 ;f'ji \ 11�;�i j, eSif ,i3fEsf�fj,y j��`i{ der . ; slf[,Ci(t.3''# vll Q � `� s� fi�iil,�t ;� ffFF�F�=`•a 3f oi,�Fi.,gFFf .�1 U [ { "alt. j ( HIM x � ! U fi"8P W se} I # F F F i i� r yfib[•[.,, i�F 6F§Cy bi � .. r w e� f i�r{ ^�[§7 d�,._ ii �GppeF9.e S f[� 0�®®9a6i1� t R E fW'dlf Ij2�E� U JOINT USE AGREEMENT CITY OF ARDEN HILLS TRINITY LUTHERAN OF LAKE JOHANNA PARKING LOT 1.0 Parties. This Joint Use Agreement ("Agreement") is dated the & / day of I/'/k into b and between the City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota statut ry city 2011 and �s entered ► y tY ("City") and Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna, a Minnesota non-profit corporation ("Trinity"). 2.0 Recitals. A. Trinity is the owner of Lot 1, Block 1, Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna Addition ("Trinity Property"). B. A portion of the Trinity Property has been improved with a bituminous driveway access to New Brighton Road and with a bituminous parking surface (both herein "Parking Lot"), as illustrated on Exhibit A attached and incorporated. C. The City, concurrent with the execution of this Agreement, has purchased Lot 2, Block 1, Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna Addition from Trinity ("City Property"). D. The City owns, maintains and allows public use of Hazelnut Park which is located adjacent to the City Property. 3.0 Terms and Conditions. As part of the consideration for the City's purchase of the City Property, the parties agree: A. The City, its employees and agents, and the public may use the Parking Lot any day during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m, in conjunction with their use of the City Property and/or Hazelnut Park. B. This Agreement can be terminated by the City upon sixty (60) days written notice to Trinity. Trinity may not terminate the Agreement without the City's written consent. C. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, a Nlinn ota statuto city David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: Patrick Klaers, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF &) On this I � day of a:N , 2011, before me, a notary public within and for said county, personally appeared David/Grant and Patrick Klaers, to me known to be respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, and they executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same by authority of and on behalf of City of Arden Hills. Notary Public SHERRI ANN EISENBRAUN Notary Public Minnesota emy Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2013 TRINITY LUTHERAN OF LAKE JOHANNA By: Its: il STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2011, before me, otary p blic within and for said county, per Dually appeared ,o _�, the (' i�4--+— of Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna and has executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same by authority of and on behalf of Trinity Lutheran of Lake o anna. otary ublic : , MARGARET A, HAWKINS IgGtary Public -Minnesota My Car' "'On E xl7iros Jan 31, 2015 Arden HillsWgreements\Joint Use Agree ment-Trinity.v9.doc EXHIBIT A Parking Lot In 81e.it{f it`( T Tlt�a Ai 1 Str z i i a{ J �• �� p?R. R� a �`SI 1 i ii! 3°' i�c 5!}'a •�:'i , E W y Z 3�i•„yg„* Z � � #ia I�i}��yA �J 4t�'Ii'`l�f�f����•�;��ii \ ��/ �� z � � g 3a� life+•: tai'�]'a � � l,af�i�iia 3'.�it3.1 iijla la � \ Z a � a 'Yiy�e tFF! 11 �) ;t�j .'fjo iffiii i1;1=3 ss'a2a;, iEl ii�'s, luggs[ .� /,. 1 i e•,a+ ;ilii; � LL. LLJ 'Z q \ Its r ll 1 1 1� 1 '�a. ' I I, ll fiAll ll I 1 a11Alr To MA es I [� q? W�YI��ap _ ` � \ 1 � 9fV -'WMI SB CLl M .SS.LA00 N_-- -, 1 .. •i�i'�3:TSa�I1 YY12.p '1JaR-J{ 6 -- a F; —_—_ ------- ..-- •--------------------- tpi e: u z 's9S+ 7 ,„„l �4i N ° f 5 all: i q is �f Ala'• 3gg �!! a , a B tp 9is°97�3 3� �•`al � .. � 1 13 . i �, e l•� !l: ��i 61€ � d p � E r4 22 Attachment B SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS AND TRINITY LUTHERAN OF LAKE JOHANNA PARKING LOT This Supplemental Agreement ("Agreement") is dated the day of , 2022, and is entered into by and between the City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and the Gathering Place Lutheran Ministries, formerly known as Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("Church"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into a Joint Use Agreement dated May 16, 2011 regarding the joint use of the parking lot located on Lot 1, Block 1, Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna Addition ("Joint Use Agreement"); WHEREAS, the parties also previously entered into a Maintenance Agreement for the parking lot dated May 16, 2011 regarding the obligations of each party for maintenance of the parking lot ("Maintenance Agreement"); WHEREAS, the Maintenance Agreement specifies that reconstruction of the jointly used parking lot would be accomplished following agreement between the parties; WHEREAS, City and Church have discussed the reconstruction of the j ointly used parking lot and have determined that it would be beneficial to both parties to reconstruct the parking lot in accordance with mutually agreed upon plans and specifications, including a reduction in impervious surface space. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the City and Church agree as follows: 1. PARKING LOT RECONSTRUCTION. The parties agree to reconstruct the parking lot in accordance with the plans and specifications to be determined by the City Engineer or consulting engineer hired by the City. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. The parties agree that the City will reconstruct the parking lot and assess the Church for fifty (50%) percent of the costs. The Church agrees to waive any objection to constitutionality or legality of the assessment and agrees to pay the assessment over twenty (20) years with an interest rate of two percent. The Church may choose to pay the City for the project upfront or early if it chooses. In addition, in exchange for the parties splitting the costs 50:50 to reconstruct the parking lot, the Church agrees to donate approximately twenty-eight (28%) percent (estimated to be 222005v5 approximately 50 parking stalls) of the existing parking lot back to the City for greenspace/parkland. The final amount of land donated will be determined during the design phase of the project by the City and Church. For a period of twenty (20) years following the completion of the parking lot reconstruction, the City will: • Crack -seal and/or sealcoat the parking lot on a predetermined schedule; • Annually fill minor potholes in the parking lot that can be reasonably filled as determined by the City; • Annually issue payment to the Church in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred and no/100ths ($1,500.00) Dollars for snow plowing the parking lot. • For the life of this agreement, the Church shall be responsible for any and all maintenance activities, including all associated costs, outside of crack -sealing, sealcoating, and/or minor pothole filling to ensure the usability and long-term life of the parking lot. This agreement expires after 20 years following the completion of the parking lot reconstruction, the City and the Church may mutually enter into another Maintenance and Use Agreement. 3. PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS. Except as provided herein, the Joint Use Agreement and the Maintenance Agreement, with all its terms and conditions, shall remain in full force and effect. 4. RECITALS. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow. 222005v5 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS I2 ATTEST: Dave Perrault, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) David Grant, Mayor The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2022, by David Grant and by Dave Perrault, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 222oosys CHURCH: GATHERING PLACE LUTHERAN MINISTRIES, formerly known as Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation I: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) Rosemary Braun, Its President The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2022, by Rosemary Braun, the President of Gathering Place Lutheran Ministries, formerly known as Trinity Lutheran of Lake Johanna, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNuTsoN ProfessionalAssocialion Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 JJJ 222005v5 AGENDA ITEM — 3L ,-ARZEN_HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: JDA Chair Interview and Selection Process Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration Council may direct Staff on the interview and selection process for the JDA Chair. Background Applications for the JDA Chair close on February 241h, Council should be ready at this evening's meeting to talk about the timing for JDA Chair interviews and direct staff accordingly. A few items to consider: • Will there be only one round of interviews (previously, only one round was needed)? • Will the entire Council be involved in the interviews (previously, the whole Council was included)? • Will the interviews be spread over more than one evening or will there be only one night for interviews? • Timing for approval, the next regular Council meeting will occur on March 13th, should Council want to appoint at this meeting interviews and selection will need to be completed. • How will interview questions be determined? The City Administrator can distribute the previously used questions to Council prior for feedback, but who will have the final say on the questions to be asked? Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM —3M ,-ARZEN_HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Future Council Meeting Processes Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration Council may provide direction on future Council meeting processes. Background This item was requested by a Councilmember for the agenda; Council may discuss processes for future meetings, such as, timing of future work sessions, processes of agenda setting, etc. Budtet Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM — 3N -iZR�EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Council Tracker Update Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider The Council should provide further direction on items presented on the Council Request Tracker. Background City Council will receive a verbal update on items the Council has previously directed staff to research and/or bring forward. Discussion N/A Budget Impact N/A Attachments N/A Page 1 of 1