Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026 10-06 PC Packet4200 Otter Lake Road Gem Lake, MN 55110 (651) 747 -2790 city@gemlakemn.org Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 2026 7:00 p.m. Heritage Hall I.Call to Order of the Planning Commission Meeting By Chair Don Cummings at 7:_____ p.m. II.Call of Roll Cummings ______ Farrell _____ Pratt _____ Wippich ______ Epelboim_____ III.Approve Agenda and Minutes A.Accept the Agenda for the October 6, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting B.Approve the Minutes of September 1, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting IV.Public Hearings A.3 Daniels Farm Road – Tom Rasmussen – Planning Case Z2026-007; Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Accessory Structure exceeding 1,000 sq. feet and Planning Case Z2026-008; Variance to Allow a Garage Height Exceeding 15 feet and the of height of the Existing House. B.1495 County Road E – Apple Ford – Planning Case Z2026-003; Zoning Compliance Request; Planning Case Z2026-004; Minor Subdivision and Planning Case Z2026-006; Zoning Text Amendment. V.Old Business VI.New Business VII.Open Items for Commission Members to Bring Up A.2050 Comprehensive Plan Open House – October 12, 2026, 4 -6 PM at Heritage Hall VIII.Future Council Meetings Next City Council Meeting, Tuesday, October 20, 2026 Next Planning Commission Meeting, Wednesday, November 4, 2026 o Attendance Inquiry IX.Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at ________ City of Gem Lake Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 1, 2026 I. Call to Order of the Planning Commission Meeting By Chair Don Cummings at 7:00 p.m. II. Call of Roll Commission Members Don Cummings, Derek Wippich, Art Pratt and Daniel Epelboim were present. Commissioner Stephanie Farrell was absent. Also present was City Clerk Barb Suciu. III. Approve Agenda and Minutes A. Approve the Agenda for the September 1, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting A motion was introduced by Commissioner Wippich to approve August 4, 2026, agenda, seconded by Commissioner Epelboim. Motion carried 4-0. B. Approve the Minutes of August 4, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting A motion was introduced by Commissioner Wippich to approve April 7, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting minutes, seconded by Commissioner Epelboim. Commissioner Pratt abstained. Motion carried 3-0 (1 abstain). IV. Public Hearings A. 4180 Otter Lake Road - Application for Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and (2) Variance to allow an accessory structure to exceed the 15-foot height maximum for ECM Construction LLC, on behalf of Christopher Marquez Gutierrez, owner. Commissioner Wippich made a motion to open the public hearing at 7:02 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Pratt. Motion approved 4-0. Andrew Boucher, TKDA, indicated 4180 Otter Lake Road, ECM Construction, LLC., on behalf of Christopher Marquez Gutierrez, is requesting consideration of two applications, a Conditional Use Permit to permit an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and a variance to allow an accessory structure to exceed the 15-foot height minimum. ECM Construction LLC submitted it on behalf of Christopher Marquez Gutierrez, the owner. The applicant initially applied for a Special Home Occupation Permit that was withdrawn on July 21, 2026 and a variance application was submitted on August 12, 2026. Conditional Use Permits and Variances are processed according to Ordinance 131, Consolidated Land Use Ordinance pursuant to Section 17, Administration and Enforcement, Subsection4, Variances and 5, Conditional Use Permits. Applications require consideration by the Planning Commission in a public hearing and by City Council for final approval. Both must be approved for the applicant to move forward with the proposed detached garage in its current configuration. The application was deemed complete on June 11, 2026 for the Conditional Use Permit and August 12, 2026 for the Variance. Public notices were sent to neighbors within 350 feet of the property on June 11, 2026 and August 13, 2026. The public hearing notice was published in the White Bear Press on June 17, 2026 and August 19, 2026. The property is within Medium Density (RS) Residential district and Shoreland Management Overlay district. The property currently has a residential single-family dwelling unit, building in 1956. There is an active residential building permit to remodel and add onto the existing house and address the Housing Maintenance Ordinance No. 83 code violations. The property has also been operating a construction business at the property with multiple trucks and trailers being stored, staged, and delivered from the property. Both applicant and owner were advised to cease the operation of the commercial business until the necessary approvals were received. For the area, frontage and yard requirements, the proposed project meets all requirements except the maximum accessory structure height. The height regulation state no accessory structure shall exceed 15 feet in height at the time a variance is required to allow the proposed accessory garage height of 24’10”. The purpose and intent of the variance process is to alleviate strict application of provisions with the zoning ordinance. Variances shall be considered in cases whereby reason of practical difficulties, meaning the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. For conditional use permits there are several considerations. • Adjacent uses. This criterion is not met. With the property zoning, it is surrounded by other single- family residential properties, Gem Lake City Hall and industrial property in a neighboring jurisdiction. The property owner is proposing to use the property in a manner that is not permitted in the zoning district. The property owner is currently operating a construction business and has not ceased the operation. The business is not compatible with the adjacent residential properties. • Air and Water Quality. This criterion needs more clarification. The property is currently operating a construction business that involves storage and staging of trucks, trailers, and other equipment that may generate negative impacts to air and water quality based on the potential storage of these vehicles. • Traffic Generation. This criterion is not met. The proposed use of a construction business with trucks, trailers, and other construction equipment being stored, staged and delivered to and from the property would generate more traffic than would be expected from a single-family dwelling unit. • Public Safety and Health. This criterion needs more clarification. The proposed may impact public safety and health. • Area Aesthetics. This criterion is met. The proposed garage is expected to be constructed in accordance with the other dwelling units and garages in the area. • Economic Impact on the Entire Area. This criterion is met. The proposed use would be more beneficial to the economic impact on the entire area. • Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. The 2040 Comprehensive plan designates the existing land use Single-Family Residential and the future land use guiding as Single- Family Residential. • Anticipated Duration of the Conditional or Interim Use. This criterion is met. There would be no anticipated dissolution of the conditional use. Conditional uses, if discontinued for 6 months, are considered void. The project plans were forwarded to staff and other agencies for comments. Ramsey County staff reviewed the plans and require construction at the property route construction traffic to avoid using Goose Lake Road if it takes place in the latter half of 2027, as a condition of the approval. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO), White Bear Lake Fire Department, Gem Lake Building Official and City Engineer all reviewed the plans and had no comment. Staff give a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet based on unmet criteria including: adjacent uses, air and water quality, traffic generation, public safety and health, and consistency with the comprehensive plan. For the variance, staff is giving a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve a variance for an accessory structure exceeding 15 feet and allow a variance for a 9’10” height, not to exceed 24’10” based on unmet criteria including: the use is not a reasonable use of the property permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property and the hardship was created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted will alter the essential charge of the locality. as it is not a reasonable land use, hardship created by the owner. Chair Cummings talked about the Zoning Ordinance and how it has recently been reviewed so this is not an ordinance going back to 40-50 years. Dennis Holmen, 4160 Otter Lake Road, he understood that the recommendation from the planner reiterated all the notes he was going to bring up. He thanked the Planning Commission for their work and appreciates the manner in which it is being handled. Ashley Phillips, 4150 Otter Lake Road stated she expressed the same concerns regarding the integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Wippich stated the City does have properties with larger garages but feels it the intended use of the garage is something that can’t be overlooked. Commissioner Pratt made a motion to close the public hearing at 7:19 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Wippich. Motion approved 4-0. A motion was introduced by Chair Cummings to deny a variance request to allow construction of an accessory structure exceeding the 15-foot maximum for accessory structure and permit a maximum height of 24 feet, 15 inches at 4180 Otter Lake Road, seconded by Commissioner Epelboim. Motion carried 4-0. A motion was introduced by Chair Cummings to deny a conditional use request to allow an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet at 4180 Otter Lake Road, seconded by Commissioner Pratt. Motion carried 4-0. B. 3651 Highway 61, 1491 County Road E East, 1485 County Road E East, and 0 Country Road E East - Apple Autos Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision Chair Cumming asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Commissioner Pratt made a motion to open the public hearing at 7:27 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Wippich. Motion approved 4-0. Andrew Boucher, TKDA, indicated Chris Gulbrandson, President of Apple Autos, requests a minor subdivision to adjust the lot line for parcel 4 and combine that portion of parcel 4 with commonly owner parcel 2 and 3 into two parcels. It would result in one 22.94-acre lot for the redevelopment of the Apple Ford White Bear Lake Dealership and one 10.65 lot that will remain vacant at this time. White Bear Lake Auto Real Estate, LLC will consolidate the new dealership parcel with the existing 3651 Highway 61 at a future date as a condition of the approval. In addition to a subdivision, all redevelopment in the Gateway District requires a zoning compliance permit per Ordinance No. 131, Section 9. Gateway (2.2.2). Applications require consideration by the Planning Commission in a public hearing and by City Council for a final approval. The applicant has indicated interest in applying for a Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use permit accommodating the potential flexibility for the development. The application was deemed complete on August 10, 2026 for the Minor Subdivision and Zoning Compliance Permit. Public notice to neighborhood within 350 feet of the property mailed to property owners in the project area and on August 13, 2026. Public notice was published in the White Bear Press on August 19, 2026. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) provided initial review comments on January 12, 2026, and indicated MnDOT and the City require a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to analyze the impacts of converting the current employee restricted access to US 6 to an unrestricted public access. MnDOT has not provided full review comments as of September 1, 2026. The City Engineer provided a memo address general site and specific stormwater comments included in the packet. SEH noted that the TIS does not include any additional trips for a public car wash or proposed coffee shop with the trip generation increase show based off the change in the building size. If the RI/RO access on Highway 61 feeds the coffee shop, there would be a significant increase in usage at the access that has not bee accounted for in the TIS. Another item that should be discussed is the applicant’s tree preservation plan which in the current configuration does not meet the requirements of Ordinance 131. The proposed properties are in the Gateway District. The subject parcels are located north of County Road E East, west of US Highway 61, and east of Daniels Farm Road. Property within the Gateway District and Shoreland Management Overlay District. The parcels also include the Gateway subzones Neighborhood Center (NC), Neighborhood Mixed-Use, Neighborhood General, and Neighborhood Edge. The subzones do not follow the property lines. There are currently nine existing structures. Most of the parcel areas are occupied by paved parking spaces for customers and merchandise. The total existing building area is 88,580 square feet. The proposed redevelopment to include an expansion to the auto dealership, car wash and Starbucks without drive-through facilities but open to the public. The Gateway subzones included in the proposed development are: Neighborhood Edge: This area is currently 5.2 acres of vegetation in Parcel 4 along the northern property boundary. Proposed to be within proposed Parcel 1 and fully preserved, consistent with the intent of the NE subzone. Neighborhood General: This area is the northern half of the vacant land in Parcel 4/Proposed Parcel 2 with some land located within the vegetated area in proposed Parcel 1, consistent with the intent of the of NG subzone. Neighborhood Mixed Use: This area includes the southern half of Parcel4/Proposed Parcel 2 as well as a portion of the proposed parking lot (about three rows of parking). The parling lot is a low impact use and meets the intent of the NMU sub-zone. Neighborhood Center: Parcels 1, 2, and 3 are entirely within this subzone. The proposed use aligns with the intent for retail, office and medium-large scale commercial activity. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Commercial and Undeveloped. The proposed use follows the 15a, Automotive Dealership, is proposed and is a permitted use in the Gateway Zoning District subject to the following modifications or exclusions. This specific building type has certain exemption from Gateway Zoning District development rules and is allowed if the following criteria are met: Lot size and placement are appropriate. Due to the orientation, proximity to the intersection, and comments from MnDOT, access will be from County Road E East. A secondary access will be available on Highway 61 in the same location as the existing access. Parking: Customer parking requires “one space per 1,000 square feet ended up, plus one space for each service or cleanup stall. Outside inventory and service vehicles is not counted toward the parking requirements.” The applicant is proposing 1,179 stalls with 6 accessible stalls. The proposed development is required to have 189 stalls. Impervious Surface Coverage : the maximum is 80% of the lot. The applicant is proposing parcel 1 (dealership) to have a total of 58.6% impervious surface coverage and Parcel 2 (vacant) to have a total of 0.0% impervious coverage. Height: The maximum height permitted is two stories or 36 feet total. The dealership proposed to construct a building no taller that 28 feet and no shorter than 18 feet. Height varies by building area, for example, the showroom area is 28 feet tall whereas the car wash/detailing space is 18 feet tall. Building Disposition: The footprint requirement of 1-2 stories with minimum 0,000 square feet is met. Parking setbacks of 20 feet from the County Road ROW, 10 feet from the Highway ROW, and 10 feet from the interior lot lines are met. Building setbacks of 30 feet from any lot line are me and the orientation of the building is appropriate. The tree preservation, the applicant submitted a tree inventory, a landscape plan, and narrative describing the tree preservation and acknowledging the inability to supply over 1,500 new trees to comply with the Ordinance. A portion of the development site is within the Shoreland Overlay Zone. The applicant proposes an alternative for the City to review in terms of the landscape and tree preservation replacement provided replacing the maximum amount of feasible trees around and throughout the site in optimal locations. Cleaning up and reestablishing the natural wetland are and buffers on the north side of the site. This will include removing invasive species and dead or unhealthy plants materials, reestablishing native planting, planting additional native trees, and providing additional buffering along the portions that border the proposed edge of the site and parking lot. Paying a portion of park dedication to the City despite being exempt from paying it as the project is not a full subdivision. will voluntarily pay the city for parkland dedication despite creating no new lots. The tree preservation and landscape plan does not meet the requirements of City Code as presented in the current configuration. The applicant may consider the following options to meet the requirements: • Revise the plan to show less removal of trees and reducing the amount of replacement trees. • Apply for a Variance to Section 27. • Explore other alternatives such as potentially obtaining an easement from the adjacent property owner to allow for additional tree replanting. The project plans were forwarded to staff and other agencies for comments. Ramsey County staff reviewed the plans and requested more details on the connection to the County drainage system. As proposed the invert is higher than the existing conditions and will obstruct drainage from the County CB to the east. A conflict between the HydroCAD results and HWL shown on plans which is correct and questioned where the EOF discharge; Minnesota Department of Transportation is reviewing the application and will provide comments. Prior correspondence dated January 12, 2026, indicated MnDOT required a Traffic Impact Study. The TIS should analyze the impacts of converting the current employee restricted access to US 61 to an unrestricted public access; Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO) had no comment and the wetland delineation was approved on July 14, 2026; White Bear Lake Fire Department provided a turning radius overlay sheet in the plan-set and all new fire hydrants shall the large diameter discharge port configured as 5” Storz connection with cap; Gem Lake Building Official is reviewing the application and will provide comments and a building permit will be required; City Engineer reviewed the application and provided a memo dated August 25, 2026, outlining the general site and stormwater comments all reviewed the plans and had no comment; and City of Vadnais Heights provided a memo dated August 7, 2026. Chair Cummings stated all existing parcels 1, 2 and 3 are in the gateway district and three are in the Neighborhood Center. He indicated the commission needs to work within guidelines and being careful not to create something radical. Mr. Boucher read the definitions of Gateway Edge, Gateway General, Gateway Neighborhood, and Gateway Center. Chris Gulbrandson, Apple Ford, stated they purchased the dealership in August of 2024. This is one of three dealerships owned by Apple and the largest part of the business is the wholesale parts division. This project is to transition this dealership into a flagship Ford dealership. This would be the first 2.0 dealership in Minnesota with a clean, modern look. The project is approximately 130,000 square feet and is estimated it will have a $50 million investment in the community. He stated the goal is to make this development work with the community. Apple Ford believes strongly in the Gem Lake community. Zeke Peters, Landform Professional Services, representing Apple Ford, thanked staff for the time they have taken with this project. Looking at the Comp plan and the area, they wanted to be sensitive to the neighbors and preserving the buffer to the north side of the development. They want to main this buffer and clean it up now for whatever is going to happen with the empty lot. This will reduce the runoff into the lake and preserve that water quality. The impervious surface is expanding but is reducing the overall stormwater impact. The traffic study they received information today and working through those comments. Unique location and a lot of the trips will be incidental. Operation changes were minimum with the right in right out on Highway 61 as most people will take the County Road E entrance. The bigger issue is the tree preservation and the shifting of the site. They are requesting feedback on how to go forward with the site. Option 1 is not feasible with the improvement of the project. The tree line is very developed. Option 2 we are not interested in, as it is a self-created issue. Option 3 was presented to us. Restoring the wetland buffer and putting it in a permanent land conservation easement. Having goats go through and clean up the current line. Adding more buffers on non- natural line and buffers on the vacant land for whatever will be developed there later. They are also willing to go down the Planned Unit Development way if that is possible. We are willing to work with staff, planning commission, city council and the public for whatever that may look like. We are excited to work with this business and are very conscious of the housing to the north. There is a change to the car wash as it will only be for internal use. Deb Suhadolnik, resident, expressed concern about the buffer zone that has be to the west side of the development. The large stand of conifers provides a sound and light barrier for the residents in the Villas. What could be worked out to provide a buffer and barrier. The undeveloped portion and what the future plans are for this piece of property. If expanding a mixed use, what type of mixed use. The height of lights is of concern as well. Barry Kostyk, resident, stated he has the same concerns with all the efforts towards the north side but needs to take into consideration the west side of the properties. Additionally, traffic is a concern as well. Jim & Beth Tschid a, residents, expressed concerns about the current buffer tree line on the north side that is shared with their property, the lighting, trees, noise, and traffic. The nature of the land to impose additional lights traffic to an area that is peaceful and calm. How do we go about lessening the impact of all of this. An example of the west side, possibly a berm structure with the trees plants on top of the structure to block out the light and possibly the noise. Hoping the north side is not going to be effected because that tree line is going to remain. That land is 26 acres and is in a Minnesota Land Trust and is preserved with perpetuity not to be built on. The wetland he recommended this be put in a land trust so it can’t be built on. The land trust that was discussed is perfect to monitor this land. Concerns about Daniels Farm Road and the lilacs along the entrance. Is that something that can be seeded to the Daniels Farm Association so they can be preserved. It is another buffer zone, and it is a beautiful area offsetting the commercial area. Downlighting and dimming the lighting at a certain time after a certain time of night. People in the community would be more comfortable knowing that the there is a lighting plan. Mr. Boucher stated during the redevelopment of Barnett KIA dealership, there was condition from the Planning Commission of dimming the lights to 15% luminous between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am and can be luminated to 100% with motion lighting for security purposes. This is something the commission can discuss. Chair Cummings stated that the city has a lighting ordinance and discourages full lighting at specific times of the day. Tom Rasmussen, resident, addressed the lighting issue. The indicated there is a lighting ordinance, but it is currently in violation of the lighting ordinance. Specifically, when talking about lighting, he would like to specifically talk about which ordinance and update the ordinance if needed. There are more modern, down shining LED’s. Chair Cummings stated this was a big part of the discussion with Barnett during their development. It is an opportunity to have a better-looking space with lighting and landscaping. He came back to the bigger issue if all this was happening on Parcel 1, 2, and 3. It is the expansion into parcel 4 and the undeveloped portion is what is putting people on edge. Beth Tschida, resident, stated these parcels are supposed to have some flow into the neighborhood and is typically how it goes. From beginning to end, it is either parking or dealership. Chair stated the idea of long term of something new it is a great view and hope for but in the same time, the reality is that people that own land are trying to figure out what to do with this land. Rob Bre dsten, resident, expressed concerns with the traffic issue on County Road E East. He indicated it is nearly impossible to make a left hand turn out the development. Beverly Bergstrom, resident, stated she supports the comments regarding creating the berm, and possibility of the land trust. These are excellent way of maintaining the semi-rural community. Laura Rasmussen, resident, expressed concerns about the Starbucks location and the car lights hitting her house. Is it possible to add a fence to buffer the car lights. Mr. Boucher asked for residents to send any comments in writing to the him or the City Clerk. Mr. Peters addressed the lighting and today’s lighting doesn’t comply. Buffer down the west. The lilacs are being left alone but hearing the options of where the land goes are beneficial. The traffic study has been submitted, and some items will need to be ironed. On County Road E, currently there are three entrances, with the proposed site, it will go down to one. Stormwater currently is not good, and it is a priority with the new development to improve the water quality of Gem Lake. The County usually defer the traffic portion to MnDOT when the project is close to a highway. The route going forward with the tree preservation. The berm with the trees on top could be considered. The concern of the Starbucks location; it is located in the southeast side of the building. As for the undeveloped land, 15a in the ordinance indicates that a dealership needs to be on Highway 61 and County Road E. He believes this land would not qualify for the dealership without coming back to the city. They are watching the changes in coming in the new comprehensive plan. They are looking for direction on how to go forward with the tree preservation ordinance. Is that a zoning text amendment. Commissioner Wippich stated this is the most controversial pieces of property. It is said that the trees were put there, but actually these trees were left there. Commissioner Pratt encouraged the creative ideas with the tree preservation. More buffering to the residents to the west should be considered. Commissioner Epelboim indicated the project could be resolved without expanding the business into lot 4. The tree line as it sits right now it not favorable to the development to the west. Commissioner Wippich made a motion to continue the public hearing to October 6, at 7PM, seconded by Commissioner Pratt. Motion approved 4-0. Commissioner Wippich made a motion to table the minor subdivision and zoning compliance permit for Apple Ford, 1495 County Road E East, seconded by Commissioner Pratt. Motion approved 4-0. V. Old Business VI. New Business VII. Open Items for Commission Members to Bring Up A. 2050 Comprehensive Plan Open House – October 21, 2026, 6PM at Heritage Hall. VIII. Future Council Meetings  Next City Council Meeting, Tuesday, August 18, 2026  Next Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, September 1, 2026 o Attendance Inquiry IX. Adjournment Chair Cummings introduced a motion to adjourn at 8:42 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Pratt. Motion carried 4-0. Memorandum To: Gem Lake Planning Commission Project Reference: Accessory Structure CUP & Variance – 3 Daniels Farm Road Copies To: S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc., Applicant Tom and Laura Rasmussen, Owners TKDA Project No.: 23763.000 From: Andrew Boucher, Planner Client No.: Date: September 30, 2026 SUBJECT: Applications for (1) Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and (2) Variances to allow an accessory structure to exceed the 15-foot height maximum and reduce the front yard setback for accessory structures for S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc, on behalf of Tom and Laura Rasmussen, owners. MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 LOCATION: 3 Daniels Farm Road (Parcel ID 273022310003) APPLICANT: S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc., Applicant OWNER: Tom and Laura Rasmussen, Owner ZONING: Single Family Executive Residential (RX); Shoreland Overlay District REVIEW PERIOD: 60-day period ends 11/15/2026 ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and plans received by the City on 9/16/2026; additional information received on 9/21/2026 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST At 3 Daniels Farm Road, S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc., on behalf of Tom and Laura Rasmussen, requests consideration of two applications, a Conditional Use Permit to permit an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and a variance to allow an accessory structure to exceed the 15-foot height maximum and reduce the front yard setback for accessory structures. This request requires two separate applications for review and approval: 1) Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. Ord. 131, Section 16, General Provisions, Subsection 5. Accessory Buildings, a CUP is required from the City Council. 2) Two variances to Ord. 131, Section 6, Single-Family Executive (RX) Residential District, Subsection 6, Area, Frontage, and Yard requirements for height and front yard setbacks for an accessory structure. A variance is required to exceed 15’ in height and to place the accessory structure within the required ½ of the distance of the principal structure. The principal structure is located 215-feet, 6-inches (215.5 feet) from the road right-of-way as measured from the point of the structure closest to the road to the closest location of the road right-of-way. The applicant is proposing an accessory structure height of 16-feet, 10- Accessory Structure CUP & Variance – 3 Daniels Farm Road Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/06/26 September 30, 2026 Page 2 inches (16’10”), or a variance of 1-foot, 10-inches and a front yard setback for the accessory structure of 91.5 feet, or a variance of 16.25 feet (16-feet, 3-inches) from the required 107.75-foot required setback. Conditional Use Permits and Variances are processed according to Ordinance No. 131, Consolidated Land Use Ordinance pursuant to Section 17. Administration and Enforcement, Subsection 4. Variances and 5. Conditional Use Permits. Both applications require consideration by the Planning Commission in a public hearing and by City Council for final approval. Additionally, both applications must be approved in order for the applicant to move forward with the proposed detached garage in its current configuration. PROPERTY INFORMATION Description: The subject property is located within the Single-Family Executive (RX) Residential District and is within the Shoreland Management Overlay District. The property is near the southern boundary of Gem Lake along Daniels Farm Road with Gem Lake and County Road E nearby. Other Single-Family Executive (RX) and Single-Family Estate (RE) Residential Districts are located to the west, Minnesota Land Trust property to the north and east, and adjacent to 0 County Road E with multiple Gateway District Subzones (Neighborhood Edge, General and Mixed Use). The property is accessed from Daniels Farm Road with an existing curb cut and paved driveway to be maintained. 3 Daniels Farm Road currently has a residential single-family dwelling unit, built in 1948. The property has 398 existing trees on the property and proposes removal of 26 existing trees (6.5%) of the total trees, which is below the allowed removal threshold in the Single-Family Executive (RX) Zoning District (25%) as well as the allowed removal threshold for the Shoreland Overlay District (10%) satisfying the requirements of Section 27 Tree Preservation. Accessory Structure CUP & Variance – 3 Daniels Farm Road Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/06/26 September 30, 2026 Page 4 Figure 2, Existing conditions survey dated 9-21-2026 and submitted 9-21-2026. Figure 3, Proposed conditions survey dated 9-21-2026 and submitted 9-21-2026. Accessory Structure CUP & Variance – 3 Daniels Farm Road Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/06/26 September 30, 2026 Page 5 EVALUATION OF REQUESTS Single-Family Executive (RX) Residential District Ordinance Requirements Section 6, Subsection 5. Height Regulations (1) state that no accessory structure shall exceed fifteen (15’) feet in height measured from the ground six (6’) feet from the primary front entrance to the highest point of the roof structure. A variance is required to allow an accessory garage height of 16-feet, 10-inches (16’10”) or a variance of 1-foot, 10-inches and to allow the accessory structure within the required front yard setback for accessory structures. Section 6, Subsection 6. Area, Frontage, and Yard Requirements, (1) establishes the following minimum requirements for properties constructed in the “RX” zoning district: Standard Minimum Requirement Existing Condition Proposed Condition Total Area 3.0 acres 4.62 acres N/A Buildable Area 25% of total area 25% of total area 25% of total area Open Space 50% of total area 93.71% 90.93% of total area Impervious Surface 25% of total area 6.29% 9.07% Accessory Structure Size CUP for a structure exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. N/A 2,910 sq. ft. Maximum Accessory Structure Height 15 feet N/A 16-feet, 10- inches (16′10″) Variance request of 1- foot, 10-inches (1’, 10”) Accessory Structure Front Yard Setback No less than one-half (1/2) of the distance between the principal structure (210 feet), as measured from the point of the structure closest to the road to the closest location of the road right-of-way. Principal structure is setback 215- feet, 6-inches from the road right-of- way and requires an accessory structure front yard setback of 107.75 feet (107’ 9”) 91-feet, 6-inches (91’ 6”) Variance request of 16- feet, 3-inches (16’ 3”) Accessory Structure Side Yard Setback 15 feet N/A 109.8-feet Accessory Structure Rear Yard Setback 10 feet N/A N/A Section 6, Subsection 7(3) allows for accessory structures to be permitted in front yards if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The City Council approves the building location. 2. The structure meets all setbacks. 3. The structure is located no closer to the road right-of-way than one-half (1/2) the distance between the principal structure, as measured from the point of the structure closest to the road to the closest location of the road right-of-way. 4. The structure is screened in accordance with City policies, where appropriate. Accessory Structure CUP & Variance – 3 Daniels Farm Road Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/06/26 September 30, 2026 Page 6 A variance is required to allow an accessory structure to be located in the front yard closer than ½ of the distance between the principal structure and the closest location of the road right-of-way. The existing house is 215-feet, 6- inches from the road right-of-way with the proposed accessory structure required to be 107-feet, 9-inches. Variance and Conditional Use Permit Requirements Ordinance Requirements Section 6, Subsection 5. Height Regulations (1) state that no accessory structure shall exceed fifteen (15’) feet in height measured from the ground six (6’) feet from the primary front entrance to the highest point of the roof structure. A variance is required to allow an accessory garage height of 16-feet, 10-inches (16’10”) or a variance of 1-foot, 10 inches. Section 6, Subsection 7(3) allows for accessory structures to be permitted in front yards if all the conditions above are met. A variance is required to allow an accessory structure to be located in the front yard closer than ½ of the distance between the principal structure and the closest location of the road right-of-way. The existing house is 215-feet, 6-inches from the road right-of-way with the proposed accessory structure required to be 107.75 feet (107’ 9”). The variance request is to reduce the required setback by 16-feet, 3-inches (16’ 3”) to no less than 91- feet, 6-inches from the right-of-way. Section 17, Subsection 4 establishes the purpose and intent of the variance process to alleviate strict application of provisions within the Zoning Ordinance. Variances shall be considered in cases whereby reason of “practical difficulties” means the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Furthermore, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties, and a variance may not be granted to allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district where the property is located. 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The property owner is proposing an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and 15-feet in height located within the required front yard setback from the road right-of-way, which is a reasonable manner that is not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The design is being driven by the topography challenges on site and included a separate lower storage area into the portion of the building following the existing grade with the height and roof form proposed to be more compatible with the existing residential property rather than a commercial or agricultural building. The additional ridge height is limited and primarily results from the building width and the roof geometry needed to maintain an appropriate traditional roof form for the specified hand-split cedar shake roofing. The architectural plans use 5:12 and 6:12 roof pitches. Reducing the building to a materially flatter roof solely to meet the 15-foot limit would compromise the intended roof proportions and would be less compatible with both the cedar roofing system and the architecture of the existing residence. Height relief is requested to preserve the proposed roof geometry and architectural character while maintaining the residential nature of the property. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The property has unique topographic characteristics that influenced the placement of the accessory structure. If the proposed accessory structure was located to comply with the required setback distance, then there would be an increase in paved surfaces and impervious surfaces and include challenges related to the drainage and grade changes. Relocation would cause greater disturbances of slopes, soils, and trees and terrain modification. The existing terrain and driveway elevations are property-specific conditions that have not been created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not to allow a use that is prohibited in the Zoning District, but to better serve the property owner’s personal needs for automobile storage, hobby and maintenance activities, and other functions Accessory Structure CUP & Variance – 3 Daniels Farm Road Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/06/26 September 30, 2026 Page 7 typically included in a residential detached garage. There are properties located at 3646 Labore Road and 5 Daniels Farm Road, which directly abut the subject property, with accessory structures that do not meet the required setback from the road right-of-way. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations are not identified or found to be creating practical difficulties. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This is not applicable to the variance request. Section 17, Subsection 5 sets the process for considering Conditional Use Permits, which is the same process as for variances. Conditional Use Permits are subject to the following criteria established by Section 17, Subsection 5.2.1, which are the same criteria for granting variances, with the exception of an additional criteria with the anticipated duration of the Conditional Use: 1. Adjacent Uses. This criterion is met. The property is surrounded by other Single-Family Executive (RX) and Single-Family Estate (RE) Residential properties to the west, Minnesota Land Trust property to the north and east, and adjacent to 0 County Road E with multiple Gateway District Subzones (Neighborhood Edge, General and Mixed Use). 2. Air and Water Quality. This criterion is met. The proposed accessory structure is not anticipated to negatively impact air or water quality. 3. Traffic Generations. This criterion is met. The proposed accessory structure is not anticipated to increase the amount of traffic generated by a single-family dwelling unit. 4. Public Safety and Health. This criterion is met. The proposed accessory structure is not anticipated to negatively impact public safety or health. 5. Area Aesthetics. This criterion is met. The building materials, roof form, siding, windows, doors, gutters, and exterior lighting were chosen to complement the existing residence. Exterior materials and detailing include hand-split cedar shake roofing, cedar siding, copper gutters and downspouts, copper coach lighting, residential-style windows with simulated divided lights, and residential-style overhead doors maintain the architectural character and quality of the property instead of appearing as a utilitarian outbuilding. 6. Economic Impact on the Entire Area. This criterion is met. The proposed application represents a financial investment in the property and is designed to compliment the residential property. 7. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the existing land use as Single- Family Residential, and the Future Land Use guides the property for Single-Family Residential Executive. 8. Anticipated Duration of the Conditional or Interim Use This criterion is met. There is no anticipated dissolution of the Conditional Use. Accessory Structure CUP & Variance – 3 Daniels Farm Road Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/06/26 September 30, 2026 Page 8 Staff Comments The project plans were forwarded to staff and other agencies for comments.  Ramsey County reviewed the plans and stated that since Daniels Farm Road is a private road and the proposed accessory building does not abut a county road or impact county right-of-way, there are no comments or concerns.  Vadnais Heights Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO) has reviewed the plans and does not have comments.  Fire Department (City of White Bear Lake) has reviewed the plans and does not have comments.  Building Official is reviewing the plans and will provide comments. The accessory structure requires a Building Permit to be applied for, reviewed, and approved.  Engineering has reviewed the plans and does not have comments. ACTION The Planning Commission has the following options for each request: 1. Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3. Table the request for further review/study. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give a positive recommendation approving the requested variances and Conditional Use Permit for 3 Daniels Farm Roads, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is permitted to construct the accessory structure onto the site, consistent with the plans received by the City on September 21, 2026. 2. All plans must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for SAC review prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary local permits prior to construction. 4. The applicant shall adhere to all other applicable local, state, and federal requirements. 5. The applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with this request. A separate motion should be made for each request. 1. Variance. Variance request to allow construction of an accessory structure exceeding the 15-foot maximum for accessory structure by 1-foot, 10-inches and permit a maximum height of 16-feet, 10- inches. 1. Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3. Table the request for further review/study. 2. Variance. Variance request to allow construction of an accessory structure within the required front yard setback less than ½ of the distance between the principal structure and road right-of-way to permit a minimum front yard setback of no less than 91-feet, 6-inches from the road right-of-way. 1. Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3. Table the request for further review/study. City of Gem Lake Conditional Use Permit - Page 2 of 2 Review Process 1. Submit electronically plus 6 hard copies of application and all supporting information to the City Planner (minimum of four (4) weeks prior to the Planning Commission Meeting.) 2. Planning Commission: 2nd Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. at Heritage Hall, 4200 Otter Lake Road. The City Clerk schedules public hearing dates and provides information to the White Bear Press for the time and place of the hearing. Planning Commission Meeting Date: 3. City Council: 3rd Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. at Heritage Hall, 4200 Otter Lake Road. The City Clerk schedules public hearing dates and provides information to the White Bear Press for the time and place of the hearing. City Council Meeting Date: Standards The City Council will approve a Conditional Use Permit only if the following facts are established:  There will be no detraction from the appearance of adjacent properties, or City as a whole.  There will not be aesthetic incompatibility  There will not be aural incompatibility (noise)  There will not be damage to vegetation  Traffic patterns will not be negatively affected  There is no unnecessary loss of existing natural features  Will not cause soil erosion  Will not increase flood potential  The proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and complies with other Ordinances Office Use Only Date Request Received: Date Application Complete: Conditional Use Permit paid: Cash Check Check No.: Receipt No.: Conditions Approval based on the following conditions Date Permit Granted: Date Permit Denied: City of Gem Lake Variance Request - Page 2 of 3 Description Zoning: Existing Use of Site: Description of Variance being requested: Setbacks: Required Existing Requested Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Other (Specify) Applicant understands that the Variance Application fee will not be refunded if, after being submitted, the application is denied or the applicant chooses to withdraw. It is the policy of City of Gem Lake that all identifiable costs associated with a Variance Application within the City of Gem Lake shall be the sole responsibility of the owner of said property. The costs shall include, but are not limited to the following: Gem Lake planning review costs (reports, meetings, site review); engineering review costs; legal costs (preparation of hearing notices, legal research, certification costs); publication costs (notice of hearing); reapportionment of assessments (engineers report); mailings and Ownership Reports (ownership/encumbrance). Prior to the final approval by the City of Gem Lake City Council, all expenses to date shall be paid by the owner. Subsequent expenses not paid at the time of final approval (due to billings by consultants, etc.) shall be due upon receipt of a billing from the City of Gem Lake. Data Practices Advisory (Tennessen Warning) I understand that some of the information provided on this form will be public data. Public data is available to anyone who makes a request for such information. Under the Minnesota Data Practices Act, your address, email and/or telephone number are private data. You may choose not to provide some or all of this private data, but it may cause your Conditional Use Permit request to be denied. By completing this information, you are consenting to allow the City of Gem Lake staff to share this information in order to administer Gem Lake Ordinances regarding Conditional Use Permitting. Please sign below to affirm that you have read this notice. Applicant Signature: Date: Prior to applying for a variance, it is recommended that the applicant contact the City Planner in order to discuss the proposal. Review Process 1. Submit electronically plus 6 hard copies of application and supporting information to the City of Gem Lake. Also submit 6 hard copies of all plans which exceed 11” x 17” in size. Any application must be received four (4) weeks prior to the Planning Commission Meeting at which the applicant would like the Planning Commission to review the proposal (to allow for Public Hearing notice). 2.Planning Commission: 2nd Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. at Heritage Hall, 4200 Otter Lake Road. The City Clerk schedules public hearing dates and provides information to the White Bear Press for the time and place of the hearing. Planning Commission Meeting Date: 3.City Council: 3rd Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. at Heritage Hall, 4200 Otter Lake Road. The City Clerk schedules public hearing dates and provides information to the White Bear Press for the time and place of the hearing. City Council Meeting Date: Standards The City Council will approve a variance only if it satisfies the description on Page one (1), and the following facts are established: Without a variance, applicant would be deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same district The special circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant Granting the variance will not confer the applicant any special privileges Will not increase traffic congestion on public streets Will not endanger public safety Will not diminish established property value Residential RX Residential ground level square footage 2232 gross sf. (2086.55 net sf). Please see narrative. The applicant also requests a variance from the RX maximum accessory-structure height of 15'-0" Proposed garage structure roof height 16' 10". See narrative 9-15-2026 9-15-2026 City of Gem Lake Variance Request - Page 3 of 3 Office Use Only Date Request Received: Date Application Complete: Variance Request Paid: Cash Check Check No.: Receipt No.: Conditions Approval based on the following conditions Date Variance Granted: Date Variance Denied: 608 East County Road D, St. Paul, Minnesota 55117 v 651.486.0339 f 651.486.9350 admin@sandpconstruction.com 3 Daniels Farm Road – CUP and Variance Application REVISED 9-21-26 Page 1 of 4 September 21, 2026 City of Gem Lake Planning Commission 4200 Otter Lake Road Gem Lake, Minnesota 55110 Property: 3 Daniels Farm Road, Gem Lake, Minnesota 55110 Property Owners: Tom and Laura Rasmussen Parcel ID: 27-30-22-31-0003 Zoning District: RX – Single Family Executive Residential District Planning Commissioners: S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc., on behalf of property owners Tom and Laura Rasmussen, respectfully submits this revised narrative in support of a Conditional Use Permit and two dimensional/location variances for a new detached residential accessory garage at 3 Daniels Farm Road. The revised variance application addresses both the proposed accessory-building height and the front-yard placement standard recently identified by the City Planner. The project remains a private residential improvement designed to complement the existing home and respond to the site’s topography. Project Intent The proposed building is intended solely for the owners’ private residential use. It will provide enclosed space for the owners’ personal antique automobile collection, a heated garage area for private hobby and maintenance activities, accessory storage, and a private lounge. No commercial business, customer activity, employee activity, retail activity, or vehicle-repair business is proposed within the building. The current architectural plan identifies approximately 1,146 square feet as Main Garage, 683 square feet as Heated Garage, 126 square feet as Lounge, and approximately 131 square feet as Storage, for approximately 2,086 square feet of main-level interior floor area. A separate lower storage area is incorporated into the portion of the building that follows the existing grade. The final Certificate of Survey prepared by Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc. now depicts the proposed garage and driveway, confirms the proposed placement on the parcel, and provides setback and hardcover information for the land- use application. The garage has been intentionally designed to complement the existing residence rather than appear as a utilitarian outbuilding. Exterior materials and detailing include hand-split cedar shake roofing, cedar siding, copper gutters and downspouts, copper coach lighting, residential-style windows with simulated divided lights, and residential-style overhead doors. These materials and proportions are intended to maintain the architectural character and quality of the property. 608 East County Road D, St. Paul, Minnesota 55117 v 651.486.0339 f 651.486.9350 admin@sandpconstruction.com 3 Daniels Farm Road – CUP and Variance Application REVISED 9-21-26 Page 2 of 4 Conditional Use Permit Request – Accessory Building Area The owners request a Conditional Use Permit to allow the proposed detached accessory building to exceed the 1,000- square-foot accessory-building limitation applicable to the property. The proposed use remains residential and accessory to the existing single-family home; the CUP request concerns the size of the accessory structure, not a change in the underlying residential use. The companion variance requests address height and the separate front-yard location standard. The property contains approximately 208,863 square feet (about 4.79 acres) within the RX residential district. The proposed garage is located northwest of the residence and connects to the existing driveway system. The Certificate of Survey shows the proposed garage approximately 63.7 feet from the westerly property line. The proposal is intended to satisfy the ordinary property-line setbacks; a separate variance is now requested from the RX front-yard location condition that requires an accessory structure to be at least one-half the principal structure’s distance from the road right-of-way. The scale of the building is further moderated by its one-story appearance, residential roof forms, compatible materials, and architectural detailing. The owners are making a significant investment in materials that match or complement the existing residence, including cedar roofing and siding and copper exterior components. The intent is for the accessory building to read as part of the established residential property rather than as a commercial or agricultural structure. Site Hardcover / Impervious Surface The final Certificate of Survey includes a proposed hardcover calculation for the completed site. The survey identifies total hardcover of 18,950 square feet on a 208,863-square-foot parcel, equal to 9.07 percent of the property. Within that total, the proposed garage is identified as 2,910 square feet and the proposed bituminous driveway as 2,323 square feet. These calculations demonstrate that the project retains substantial open and landscaped area on the parcel. Variance Request – Accessory Structure Height The owners also request a variance from the 15-foot maximum height permitted for an accessory structure in the RX district. The proposed maximum height is 16 feet 10 inches, measured from the front stoop/front apron elevation (at the garage floor elevation) to the roof peak. The requested dimensional relief is therefore 1 foot 10 inches. The additional ridge height is limited and primarily results from the building width and the roof geometry needed to maintain an appropriate traditional roof form for the specified hand-split cedar shake roofing. The architectural plans use 5:12 and 6:12 roof pitches. Reducing the building to a materially flatter roof solely to meet the 15-foot limit would compromise the intended roof proportions and would be less compatible with both the cedar roofing system and the architecture of the existing residence. The requested height does not create an additional story or change the residential character of the building. The garage remains a one-story accessory structure. The approximately 22 inches of additional ridge height is visually moderated by the building’s roof form, substantial setbacks, site topography, mature vegetation, and large parcel size. Height relief is requested to preserve the proposed roof geometry and architectural character while maintaining the residential nature of the property. The requested front-yard location relief is addressed separately below and should not be conflated with the height variance. 608 East County Road D, St. Paul, Minnesota 55117 v 651.486.0339 f 651.486.9350 admin@sandpconstruction.com 3 Daniels Farm Road – CUP and Variance Application REVISED 9-21-26 Page 3 of 4 Variance Request – Front-Yard Accessory-Structure Location The City Planner has identified the RX provision governing accessory structures in a front yard. In addition to City Council approval of the location, satisfaction of applicable setbacks, and appropriate screening, the provision requires the accessory structure to be located no closer to the road right-of-way than one-half the distance between the principal structure and the right-of-way, measured from the point on the principal structure closest to the road to the nearest point of the right-of-way. The owners request a variance from this one-half-distance location condition so that the garage may remain in the location shown on the proposed condition survey. The accompanying marked-up site diagram shows an approximate right-of-way-to-principal-structure distance of 215 feet 6 inches, yielding a one-half-distance benchmark of 107 feet 9 inches. The diagram shows the proposed garage at approximately 91 feet 3¾ inches from the same right-of-way reference, or approximately 16 feet 5¼ inches closer than that benchmark. These are diagram-based measurements offered to explain the requested relief; the City and surveyor should confirm the controlling measurement points and final variance dimension before it is entered on the application. The proposed location takes advantage of the existing driveway approach and the available terrain near the current developed area. Moving the garage farther inward to meet the one-half-distance benchmark would require a materially different connection to the existing garage driveway across a site with substantial elevation changes. The applicants anticipate that such relocation would introduce more extensive driveway-related transition and drainage challenges, and potentially greater disturbance of slopes, soils, and trees. The existing terrain and driveway elevations are property- specific conditions rather than conditions created solely by the proposed garage. The project team requests that the City evaluate the current location against these site conditions rather than require relocation based on distance alone. The variance would not waive the ordinary side, rear, or right-of-way setbacks or authorize a different use. The garage would remain a private accessory structure, and its cedar roofing and siding, copper detailing, roof form, and existing vegetation are intended to maintain a residential appearance and screening. The applicant will coordinate the final grading and erosion-control details with the surveyor and City Engineer. If requested, a comparative grading sketch can further document how the alternative location would affect driveway slopes and site disturbance. The requested relief is intended to accommodate reasonable residential use of this particular sloped site without materially altering the essential character of the locality. The owners acknowledge that the variance must be considered under the City’s applicable criteria, including whether practical difficulties arise from circumstances unique to the property and not created by the owner. Site and Neighborhood Considerations The Certificate of Survey depicts the proposed garage and driveway. The garage is approximately 63.7 feet from the westerly property line. Although the project is intended to satisfy the ordinary lot-line setbacks, the City Planner has identified an additional RX front-yard location condition requiring the accessory structure to be at least one-half the distance from the road right-of-way to the principal structure. The revised variance request expressly addresses that condition. The proposed garage is for private residential use only and is not proposed as a commercial or home-occupation facility. The building is located northwest of the residence, adjacent to the existing driveway system, and within the already developed portion of the site, rather than near a property boundary. Existing topography and mature vegetation provide substantial separation and screening from surrounding properties. The building materials, roof form, siding, windows, doors, gutters, and exterior lighting will complement the existing residence. 608 East County Road D, St. Paul, Minnesota 55117 v 651.486.0339 f 651.486.9350 admin@sandpconstruction.com 3 Daniels Farm Road – CUP and Variance Application REVISED 9-21-26 Page 4 of 4 The project is not anticipated to materially increase traffic, noise, public-service demand, or other off-site impacts. Requested Approvals Conditional Use Permit approval allowing the proposed detached residential accessory garage to exceed the 1,000- square-foot accessory-building limitation, subject to the submitted plans and any reasonable conditions imposed by the City. Variance approval allowing a maximum accessory-structure height of 16 feet 10 inches, measured from the front stoop/front apron elevation to the roof peak, in lieu of the 15-foot maximum height. Variance approval from the RX one-half-distance front-yard accessory-structure location condition, allowing the garage in the location shown on the submitted proposed-condition survey; final dimensional relief to be confirmed against the City’s right-of-way measurement methodology. Thank you for considering the CUP and both variance requests. The owners and project team are available to provide additional grading or site information that the Planning Commission or City Planner may request. Supporting Application Documents: Architectural plan set – Remote Garage, 3 Daniels Farm Road Certificate of Survey - existing conditions and proposed improvements, including setbacks and hardcover calculations Conditional Use Permit application Variance application Respectfully submitted, S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc. Scott R. Foss, President Minnesota Building Contractor License; BC 003066 EPA Firm Certification; NAT -69025-3 A3.2 1 A3.1 1 A3.1 2 A3.22 1 A3.53 A3.3 1 A3.3 2 A3.4 683 39 SF HEATED GARAGE 126 29 SF LOUNGE 130 82 SF STORAGE 1,146.05 SF MAIN GARAGE 2 A3.32 A3.5 103 102 VERIFY OWNERS LIFT SIZE THICKEN SLAB/REINFORCE OWNER LIFT ADD POWER PLAIN CONCRETE LANDING PLAIN CONCRETE APRON PIN TO BUILDING SLAB PLAIN CONCRETE APRON PIN TO BUILDING SLAB - --- 5' - 0 " 8' 0 " 3' - 4 " 8'-0"8'-0" 24'-0" EQ EQ 5' - 0 " 8'-0"12'-0"12'-0"8'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0"2'-0" 2'-0"2'-0"2'-0" 30 ' - 0 " 43 ' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ 115 114 109 111112113 90 90 90 90 9090 9292929292 90 90 90 40'-0" 60 8 E a s t C o u n t y R o a d D , S u i t e 6 , S t . P a u l , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 1 1 7 Sc a l e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r Dr a w n / D e s i n g e d b y Co n t r a c t o r C o n t a c t I n f o r m a t i o n ; O. 6 5 1 - 4 8 6 - 0 3 3 9 C. 6 1 2 - 7 7 0 - 0 3 8 4 E. s f o s s @ s a n d p c o n s t r u c t i o n . c o m MN L i c e n s e B C 0 0 3 0 6 6 EP A L i c e n s e N A T - 6 9 0 2 5 - 3 Pr o j e c t D a t e PRINT DATE 9/ 1 4 / 2 0 2 6 1 0 : 2 8 : 5 6 P M 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 9/14/2026 10:28:56 PM Re m o t e G a r a g e To m a n d L a u r a R a s m u s s e n 3 D a n i e l s F a r m R o a d Ge m L a k e , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 1 1 0 A2 . 0 FL O O R P L A N 26 0 4 0 10 - 3 1 - 2 6 SR F 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.0 1 GARAGE FLOOR WINDOW SCHEDULEWINDOW SCHEDULE Type MarkType Mark WidthWidth HeightHeight Sill HeightSill Height Cladding MaterialCladding Material ManufacturerManufacturer ModelModel 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 90 2'-5 1/4" 3'-11 1/2" 4'-0 1/2" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors USHG2 2420 92 4'-0" 1'-11 1/8" 6'-2 3/16" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors UAWNNFPO4824 92 4'-0" 1'-11 1/8" 6'-2 3/16" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors UAWNNFPO4824 92 4'-0" 1'-11 1/8" 6'-2 3/16" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors UAWNNFPO4824 92 4'-0" 1'-11 1/8" 6'-2 3/16" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors UAWNNFPO4824 92 4'-0" 1'-11 1/8" 6'-2 3/16" Aluminum-Marvin-Bronze Marvin Windows and Doors UAWNNFPO4824 XX-MASTER DOOR SCHEDULEXX-MASTER DOOR SCHEDULE DOOR DOOR NAME Manufacturer Model DOOR HA R D W A R E G R O U P FRAME FI R E R A T I N G Door R-Value NOTESNUMBERWI D T H HE I G H T TH I C K N E S S MA T E R I A L FI N I S H MA T E R I A L FI N I S H WI D T H 102 Lounge Door Bayer Built SRBK 3'-0" 6'-8" 1 3/4"Fiberglass TBD TBD Wood Composite TBD 4 9/16"Yes 103 Storage Door Bayer Built SRBK 6'-0" 6'-8" 1 3/4"Fiberglass TBD TBD Wood Composite TBD 4 9/16"Yes 108 OH Door Walkout Clopay TBD 8'-0" 6'-6" 1 1/2"Steel TBD TBD Wood TBD 109 Ext Service Bayer Built PBFI605CLED 3'-0" 6'-8" 1 3/4"Fiberglass TBD TBD Wood Composite TBD 5 9/16"None 111 OH Door Clopay TBD 8'-0" 8'-0" 1 1/2"Steel TBD TBD Wood TBD 112 OH Door Clopay TBD 8'-0" 8'-0" 1 1/2"Steel TBD TBD Wood TBD 113 OH Door Clopay TBD 8'-0" 8'-0" 1 1/2"Steel TBD TBD Wood TBD 114 OH Door Clopay TBD 8'-0" 8'-0" 1 1/2"Steel TBD TBD Wood TBD 115 Int Garage Door Bayer Built SRBK 6'-0" 6'-8" 1 3/4"Fiberglass TBD TBD Wood Composite TBD 4 9/16"Yes 1 A3.5 3 A3.3 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 2 A3.4 12 ' - 0 " BACKFILLED TO SLAB HIEIGHT REINFORCED FOOTING BENEATH LIFT AREA LOWER STORAGE WITH CONCRETE FLOOR UNCONDITIONED 40'-0"24'-0" 43 ' - 0 " 24'-0" 8' - 0 " 249.39 SF LOWER STORAGE 2 A3.3 6'-0" 15 ' - 0 " - --- 40'-0" 30 ' - 0 " LANDSCAPE RETAINAGE AS NEEDED 10" POURED CONCRETE FOUNDATION. STEP AS REQUIRED BY GRADE 10" POURED CONCRETE FOUNDATION. STEP AS REQUIRED BY GRADE 10" POURED CONCRETE FOUNDATION. STEP AS REQUIRED BY GRADE 108 60 8 E a s t C o u n t y R o a d D , S u i t e 6 , S t . P a u l , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 1 1 7 Sc a l e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r Dr a w n / D e s i n g e d b y Co n t r a c t o r C o n t a c t I n f o r m a t i o n ; O. 6 5 1 - 4 8 6 - 0 3 3 9 C. 6 1 2 - 7 7 0 - 0 3 8 4 E. s f o s s @ s a n d p c o n s t r u c t i o n . c o m MN L i c e n s e B C 0 0 3 0 6 6 EP A L i c e n s e N A T - 6 9 0 2 5 - 3 Pr o j e c t D a t e PRINT DATE 9/ 1 4 / 2 0 2 6 1 0 : 2 8 : 5 7 P M 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 9/14/2026 10:28:57 PM Re m o t e G a r a g e To m a n d L a u r a R a s m u s s e n 3 D a n i e l s F a r m R o a d Ge m L a k e , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 1 1 0 A2 . 1 FL O O R P L A N L O W E R F O O T I N G 26 0 4 0 10 - 3 1 - 2 6 CK 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.1 1 GRADE NE CORNER HANDSPLIT CEDAR ROOF COPPER GUTTERS AND DOWNS SPOUTS 5" / 1 2 " 5" / 12" 5" / 1 2 " 6" / 1 2 " 6" / 12" 6" / 12" 6" / 12" 6" / 1 2 " 6" / 12" HANDSPLIT CEDAR ROOF COPPER GUTTERS AND DOWNS SPOUTS HANDSPLIT CEDAR ROOF COPPER GUTTERS AND DOWNS SPOUTS 60 8 E a s t C o u n t y R o a d D , S u i t e 6 , S t . P a u l , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 1 1 7 Sc a l e Pr o j e c t N u m b e r Dr a w n / D e s i n g e d b y Co n t r a c t o r C o n t a c t I n f o r m a t i o n ; O. 6 5 1 - 4 8 6 - 0 3 3 9 C. 6 1 2 - 7 7 0 - 0 3 8 4 E. s f o s s @ s a n d p c o n s t r u c t i o n . c o m MN L i c e n s e B C 0 0 3 0 6 6 EP A L i c e n s e N A T - 6 9 0 2 5 - 3 Pr o j e c t D a t e PRINT DATE 9/ 1 4 / 2 0 2 6 1 0 : 2 8 : 5 7 P M 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 9/14/2026 10:28:57 PM Re m o t e G a r a g e To m a n d L a u r a R a s m u s s e n 3 D a n i e l s F a r m R o a d Ge m L a k e , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 1 1 0 A2 . 2 RO O F P L A N 26 0 4 0 10 - 3 1 - 2 6 CK 1/4" = 1'-0"A2.2 1 ROOF EAVE September 16, 2026 Dear Resident, The City of Gem Lake, Minnesota, Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, at 7:00 pm.The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following applications submitted by S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc., on behalf of property owners, Tom and Laura Rasmussen,for property at 3 Daniels Farm Road (Parcel ID: 273022310003). The applicationsarefor:aConditionalUsePermittoallowforanaccessorystructureexceeding1,000 sq. ft. and a Variance to allow an accessory structure height exceeding 15’ and the height of the primary structure. The City’s Consolidated Land Use Ordinance requires a public hearing for Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications. You are being notified of this hearing because your property is within 350 feet of the applicant’s property, 3 Daniels Farm Road (Parcel ID: 273022310003) You may attend the public hearing if you wish to provide comments or ask questions about the proposedrequest.The meetingwillbeheldonTuesday,October6,2026at7:00pmatHeritage Hall (4200 Otter Lake Road).You may also submit comments in writing (by letter or email) to Barbara Suciu, City Clerk, at 4200 Otter Lake Road, Gem Lake, MN 55110 or barbara.suciu@gemlakemn.org prior to noon on the day of the meeting. The Clerk will provide all comments received to the Planning Commission. A copy of the staff report and application materials will be available for review prior to the meeting. The meeting materials will be placed on the City of Gem Lake website (https://gemlakemn.org/). Sincerely, Andrew Boucher - Gem Lake City Planner cc:Barbara Suciu, Administrative Assistant Mike Johnson, Building Inspector CITY OF GEM LAKE RAMSEYCOUNTY,MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE September 17, 2026 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of Gem Lake, Ramsey County, Minnesota shall consider applications from S S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc., on behalf of property owners, Tom and Laura Rasmussen,for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. and a Variance to allow a garage height exceeding 15 feet and the height of the existing house for property at 3 Daniels Farm Road (Parcel ID: 273022310003). The hearing will take place at the Planning Commission meeting on October 6, 2026, at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Gem Lake City Hall (4200 Otter Lake Road). A copy of the application and staff report will be available from the City Clerk approximately one week prior to the hearing. Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Mayor Published one time in the White Bear Press on _______. Accessory Structure CUP & Variance – 3 Daniels Farm Road Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/06/26 September 30, 2026 Page 9 3. Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet, not to exceed 2,910 square feet. 1. Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3. Table the request for further review/study. Attachments: Resolution No. 2026-XX Conditional Use Permit Application Variance Application Narrative Survey submitted September 21, 2026 Construction Plans submitted September 21, 2026 Public Notice to Newspaper Public Notice to Neighborhood Mailing List ATB CITY OF GEM LAKE STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR 3 DANIELS FARM ROAD (PARCEL ID 273022310003) PLANNING CASES Z2026-007 AND Z2026-008 RESPECTIVELY WHEREAS, Scott R. Foss of S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc (“The Applicant”), on behalf of the property owners, Tom and Laura Rasmussen, made applications to request a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and variances to allow the accessory structure to exceed the maximum height of 15-feet as well as allow a reduced front yard setback from the road right-of-way at the address listed above; and WHEREAS, the applicant provided the following legal description as follows: See Attachment A; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a duly noticed public hearing on October 6, 2026, and determined that the proposed request meets the criteria for a conditional use permit and variances, and voted to approve the request with conditions; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF GEM LAKE, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the conditional use permit to allow for an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and variances to permit a 16’10” accessory structure height as well as a minimum front yard setback of no less than 91-feet, 6-inches from the road right-of-way for 3 Daniels Farm Road (Parcel ID 273022310003), based on the following findings: 1. Based on the applicant’s submittal, the request meets the requirements of the city’s Consolidated Land Use Ordinance (Ordinance No. 131) for Conditional Use Permits and Variances. 1. Adjacent Uses. This criterion is met. The property is surrounded by other Single-Family Executive (RX) and Single-Family Estate (RE) Residential properties to the west, Minnesota Land Trust property to the north and east, and adjacent to 0 County Road E with multiple Gateway District Subzones (Neighborhood Edge, General and Mixed Use). 2. Air and Water Quality. This criterion is met. The proposed accessory structure is not anticipated to negatively impact air or water quality. 3. Traffic Generations. This criterion is met. The proposed accessory structure is not anticipated to increase the amount of traffic generated by a single-family dwelling unit. 10/12/2026 1 City of Gem Lake October 6, 2026 Planning Commission M eeting Planning Case: 2026-007 and 2026-008 S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc Planning Commission M eeting –October 6, 2026 City Council M eeting –October 20, 2026 Applicant –S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc Requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Variances for 3 Daniels Farm Road 1 2 10/12/2026 2 Developm ent Location: 3 Daniels Farm Road N Daniels Farm Road County Road EVadnais Heights Conditional Use Permit and Variance •Applications for (1) CUP for an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and (2) Variances to allow an accessory structure to exceed the 15-foot height maximum and to allow an accessory structure within the required front yard setback less than ½ of the distance between the principal structure and road right-of-way. •Applicant - S&P Construction of St. Paul, Inc. submitted, on behalf of Tom and Laura Rasmussen, owner. The applicant initially applied for one variance before it was determined a second variance was required. •Conditional Use Permits and Variances are processed according to Ord. No. 131, Consolidated Land Use Ordinance: Section 17. Administration and Enforcement, 4. Variances and 5. CUPs. •Applications require consideration by the Planning Commission in a public hearing and by City Council for final approval. The CUP and variances all must be approved for the applicant to move forward with the proposed detached garage in its current configuration. 3 4 10/12/2026 3 Communications •Application deemed complete on September 16, 2026 for the CUP and Variances. •Public Notice to neighborhood within 350 feet of the property mailed to 9 property owners in the project area on September 16, 2026. •Public Notice to newspaper published in White Bear Press on September 16, 2026. Property Information •Property is within the Single Family Executive Residential (RX) and Shoreland Management Overlay District. •3 Daniels Farm Road currently has a residential single-family dwelling unit, built in 1948, with an existing house and detached garage on the property. •The property is near the southern boundary of Gem Lake at along Daniels Farm Road with Gem Lake and County Road E nearby. •It has other Single-Family Executive (RX) and Single-Family Estate (RE) Residential Districts to the west, Minnesota Land Trust property to the north and east, and adjacent to 0 County Road E with multiple Gateway District Subzones (Neighborhood Edge, General and Mixed Use). 5 6 10/12/2026 4 4 Land Use Designations 2040 Comp Plan •Single Family Residential •Subject Property (Single Family Residential) Zoning Designations Map City Zoning •Single-Family Executive (RX) Residential District 7 8 10/12/2026 5 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Proposed ConditionExisting Condition Minimum Requirement Standard N/A4.62 acres3.0 acresTotal Area 25% of total area25% of total area25% of total areaBuildable Area 90.93% of total area93.71%50% of total areaOpen Space 9.07%6.29%25% of total areaImpervious Surface 2,910 sq. ft.N/ACUP for a structure exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. Accessory Structure Size 16-feet, 10-inches (16ʹ10ʺ) Variance request of 1- foot, 10-inches (1’, 10”) N/A15 feetMaximum Accessory Structure Height 91-feet, 6-inches (91’ 6”) Variance request of 16- feet, 3-inches (16’ 3”) Principal structure is setback 215-feet, 6-inches from the road right- of-way and requires an accessory structure front yard setback of 107.75 feet (107’ 9”) No less than one-half (1/2) of the distance between the principal structure (210 feet), as measured from the point of the structure closest to the road to the closest location of the road right-of- way. Accessory Structure Front Yard Setback 109.8-feetN/A15 feetAccessory Structure Side Yard Setback N/AN/A10 feetAccessory Structure Rear Yard Setback 9 10 10/12/2026 6 CUP and Variance Findings •Section 17 sets the findings required to be made for CUPs and Variances: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The property owner is proposing an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet and 15-feet in height located within the required front yard setback from the road right-of-way, which is a reasonable manner that is not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The design is being driven by the topography challenges on site and included a separate lower storage area into the portion of the building following the existing grade with the height and roof form proposed to be more compatible with the existing residential property rather than a commercial or agricultural building. The additional ridge height is limited and primarily results from the building width and the roof geometry needed to maintain an appropriate traditional roof form for the specified hand-split cedar shake roofing. The architectural plans use 5:12 and 6:12 roof pitches. Reducing the building to a materially flatter roof solely to meet the 15-foot limit would compromise the intended roof proportions and would be less compatible with both the cedar roofing system and the architecture of the existing residence. Height relief is requested to preserve the proposed roof geometry and architectural character while maintaining the residential nature of the property. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The property has unique topographic characteristics that influenced the placement of the accessory structure. If the proposed accessory structure was located to comply with the required setback distance, then there would be more driveway required and include challenges related to the drainage and grade changes. Relocation would cause greater disturbances of slopes, soils, and trees and terrain modification. The existing terrain and driveway elevations are property-specific conditions that have not been created by the landowner. CUP and Variance Findings (Continued) •Section 17 sets the findings required to be made for CUPs and Variances: 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is not to allow a use that is prohibited in the Zoning District, but to better serve the property owner’s personal needs for automobile storage, hobby and maintenance activities, and other functions typically included in a residential detached garage. There are properties located at 3646 Labore Road and 5 Daniels Farm Road, which directly abuts the subject property, with accessory structures that do not meet the required setback from the road right-of-way. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations are not identified or found to be creating practical difficulties. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This is not applicable to the variance request. 11 12 10/12/2026 7 CUP and Variance Criteria •Section 17 sets the criteria for CUPs and Variances: 1. Adjacent Uses 2. Air and Water Quality 3. Traffic Generation √ 4. Public Safety and Health 5. Area Aesthetics √ 6. Economic Impact on the Entire Area √ 7. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 8. Anticipated Duration of the Conditional Use √ √ √ √ √ Staff and Agency Comments “No comments or concerns. Comments will be provided through the building permit process.”Fire Inspector: “No comments or concerns. Comments will be provided through the building permit process.”Building Official: City Engineering staff (SEH) reviewed the application and has no comments.Engineering: “No comments or concerns.”DNR: “No comments or concerns.”Ramsey County: “No comments or concerns.”VLAWMO: 13 14 10/12/2026 8 The Planning Commission has the following options for each of the three requests with a separate motion being made for each request: 1.Approve the request, with or without conditions. 2.Deny the request, with findings for denial. 3.Table the request for further review/study Actions 14 1) Variance. Variance request to allow construction of an accessory structure exceeding the 15-foot maximum for accessory structure by 1-foot, 10-inches and permit a maximum height of 16-feet, 10-inches. 1) Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2) Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3) Table the request for further review/study. 2) Variance.Variance request to allow construction of an accessory structure within the required front yard setback less than ½ of the distance between the principal structure and road right-of-way to permit a minimum front yard setback of no less than 91-feet, 6-inches from the road right-of-way. 1) Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2) Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3) Table the request for further review/study. 3) Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet, not to exceed 2,910 square feet. 1) Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2) Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3) Table the request for further review/study. Recommendation and Conditions of Approval 15 16 10/12/2026 9 Staff recommends the Planning Commission give a positive recommendation approving the requested variances and Conditional Use Permit for 3 Daniels Farm Roads, with the following conditions: 1) The applicant is permitted to construct the accessory structure onto the site, consistent with the plans received by the City on September 21, 2026. 2) All plans must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for SAC review prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3) The applicant shall obtain all necessary local permits prior to construction. 4) The applicant shall adhere to all other applicable local, state, and federal requirements. 5) The applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with this request. Recommendation and Conditions of Approval 17 Memorandum To: City of Gem Lake Planning Commission Project Reference: Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance and Zoning Text Amendment Copies To: Chris Gulbrandson, Apple Auto and WBL Auto Real Estate, LLC TKDA Project No.: 23763.000 From: Andrew Boucher, Planner Client No.: CJ Sycks, Planner Date: September 30, 2026 SUBJECT: Apple Autos Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment MEETING DATE: October 6, 2026 LOCATION: 3651 Highway 61 (PID 273022340010), 1491 County Road E E (PID 273022340009), 1485 County Road E E (PID 273022340006), and 0 County Road E E (PID 273022340007). APPLICANT: Chris Gulbrandson, Apple Autos OWNER: WBL Auto Real Estate, LLC. ZONING: Gateway (G) District: Neighborhood Center (NC), Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU), and Neighborhood General (NG), and Neighborhood Edge (NE) sub-zones. Shoreland Overlay District. REVIEW PERIOD: 60-day period ends 10/9/2026; 120-day period ends 12/8/2026 ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and plans received on 7/30/2026 and 8/7/2026; additional information received on 9/15/2026; 9/28/2026 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Chris Gulbrandson, President at Apple Autos, requests a Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot line for Parcel 4 and combine that portion of Parcel 4 along with commonly owned Parcel 2 and 3 into two parcels. This will result in one 22.94-acre lot for the Apple Ford White Bear Lake Dealership redevelopment and one vacant 10.65. WBL Auto Real Estate, LLC will consolidate the new dealership parcel with the existing 3651 Highway 61 parcel at a future date. This future lot consolidation will be included as a condition of approval, prior to building permits being issued. The four existing parcels are identified from east to west and referred to as: • Parcel 1 (3651 Highway 61): 273022340010 • Parcel 2 (1491 County Road E E): 273022340009 • Parcel 3 (1485 County Road E E): 273022340006 • Parcel 4 (0 County Road E E): 273022340007 All redevelopment in the Gateway District requires a zoning compliance permit per Ordinance No. 131, Section 9. Gateway (2.2.2). With the pending zoning text amendment and minor subdivision request, the City will evaluate and issue the compliance permit following action by the City Council. Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 2 After the September Planning Commission, the applicant submitted a Zoning Text Amendment application proposing to amend the Building Use Type 15a for Automotive Dealerships to add a Modification/Exclusion (18) that would include language to allow the City Council to exempt Automotive Dealerships from the Tree Preservation/Reforestation standards where strict compliance with the ordinance standards would prohibit reasonable development or redevelopment of the property. This request will follow Building Type 15a in the City’s Consolidated Land Use Ordinance (Ordinance No. 131). In order for the Minor Subdivision and Zoning Compliance Certificate to be considered, the Zoning Text Amendment would need to first be approved.If the Zoning Text Amendment is denied, then the other applications must be denied. The applicant is presenting alternatives to the strict application of the tree preservation requirements at the October 6, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. PROPERTY INFORMATION Description: The subject parcels are located north of County Road E East and west of US Highway 61. The parcels are east of Daniels Farm Road (private). Parcels 1, 2, and 3, are commonly owned and fully located within the Neighborhood Center (NC) Sub-Zone of the Gateway District. There are currently nine existing structures, including one canopy structure. Most of the parcel areas are occupied by paved parking spaces for customers and merchandise. The total existing building area is 88,580 square feet. There are two access points to the property: one on Highway 61 near the northeast corner of the lot and one on County Road E East on Parcel 2. Parcel 4 is vacant and is located within three of the Gateway District Sub-Zones: Neighborhood Center (NC), Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMU), and Neighborhood General (NG), and Neighborhood Edge (NE). These subzones do not follow property lines; see Figure 3 for the zoning map. Land Use: Car Dealership (Commercial) and Vacant (Agriculture) Figure 1: Ramsey County GIS Aerial Image of Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4. County Road E East Da n i e l s F a r m R o a d Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 3 EVALUAION OF REQUEST – ORDINANCE NO. 131 Section 9. Gateway “G” District The intent of the Gem Lake Gateway District (“Gateway” or “G”) is to allow for development and redevelopment of the real property associated with Hoffman Corner and points westward along Ramsey County Road E extending northward to the border with the zoning districts identified in Sections 5 and 6 of this Ordinance. This area has been the subject of a visioning study and includes both commercial and residential opportunities as described in the City of Gem Lake Comprehensive Plan and other city documents. As introduced by the visioning plan and articulated in the Comprehensive Plan, the Gateway will emphasize commercial development and/or redevelopment in the Hoffman Corner intersection which traditionally has been the location of the Gem Lake commercial district. As one moves westward along County Road E, the intent of the Gateway is to transition into more residential type neighborhoods, becoming less dense until it transitions to either the Estate Residential district or the Executive Residential district. This application includes land within all four sub-zones. See Figure 3. Neighborhood Edge: The lowest-intensity subzone, intended to provide a transition from mixed-use areas to nearby single-family residential neighborhoods. It primarily supports lower-density housing, larger lots, clustering options, buffers, and public open space where appro priate. This area is currently 5.2 acres of vegetation in Parcel 4 along the northern property boundary. The land is proposed to be within Proposed Parcel 1 and be fully preserved. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the NE sub-zone. Neighborhood General: A transition subzone between lower-density residential areas and more active mixed- use development. It allows a range of residential building types and limited lower -impact office or retail uses that complement the surrounding neighborhood. This area is the northern half of the vacant land in Parcel 4/Proposed Parcel 2 with some land located within the vegetated area in proposed Parcel 1. This use is consistent with the intent of the NG sub-zone. Neighborhood Mixed Use: A more active subzone intended for mixed-use buildings, denser residential options, and smaller-scale commercial or office uses. This subzone will accommodate a variety of activities and services within easy walking distance from homes throughout the District , supporting daily convenience shopping and personal service needs, and also providing opportunities for public gathering and social contact. It is intended to support walkable access to daily services, convenience retail, and neighborhood gathering spaces. This area includes the southern half of Parcel 4/Proposed Parcel 2 as well as a portion of the proposed parking lot (about three rows of parking). The parking lot is complimentary to the intent of the NMU sub- zone. Neighborhood Center: The most urban and commercially focused subzone, intended for pedestrian -oriented development with ground-floor retail, offices, residential uses above where feasible, and medium - to larger-scale commercial activity. Transitions to adjacent lower-density areas should be carefully planned. Parcels 1, 2, and 3 are entirely within this sub-zone. The proposed use aligns with the intent for retail, office, and medium-large scale commercial activity. Section 9.2.1 Relationship to other portions of this ordinance and other City Ordinances. The requirements of this Section may conflict with or duplicate some portions of this Ordinance. Any such conflict, when it relates to the use of land in the Gateway District, shall be resolved in favor of the language in this Section. All other Gem Lake ordinances which relate to the construction of buildings and use of land included in the Consolidated Land Use Ordinance and other land use Ordinances apply within the Gateway District. Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 4 Starbucks The applicant also proposes to include a Starbucks Coffee business within the building. Access to Starbucks would be available through an outside entrance open to the public, as well through the dealership . Starbuck’s will not include a drive-through. There are general and accessible parking stalls along the building near the external entrance to the proposed coffee shop. The intent of the Neighborhood Center Subzone is to promote dense, mixed-use, commercial development. This proposed collaboration meets that intent. Section 9.6. Building Type Standards & Figure 15a The proposed use follows the Commercial, Automotive Dealership building type: Figure 15a. This application includes amendments to the building type to exempt Automotive Dealerships from the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. Below is a review of the proposed use. Definition: The use aligns with the definition. Lot Size and Placement: The lot size and placement is appropriate. The frontage street in Figure 15a states “Access may be from Highway 61 and a secondary street.” Due to the orientation of the property, the proximity to the intersection, and comments from MnDOT, access will be obtained from County Road E East. A secondary access will be available on Highway 61 in the same location as the existing access. Parking: Customer parking requires “one space per 1,000 SF rounded up, plus one space for each service or cleanup stall. Outside inventory and service vehicles is not counted toward the parking requirements.” The applicant is proposing 1,179 stalls with 6 accessible stalls (121,451 square feet / 1,000 square feet + 67 service stalls = 188.5 (189 rounded) stalls required). Impervious Surface Coverage: “Maximum 80% of the lot”. The applicant is proposing Parcel 1 (dealership) to have a total of 60.4% impervious surface coverage and Parcel 2 (vacant) to have a total of 0.0% coverage. Height: The maximum height permitted is two stories or 36’ total. The dealership proposed to construct the building no taller than 28 feet and no shorter than 18 feet. Height var ies by building area, for example the showroom area is 28 feet tall, whereas the car wash/detailing space is 18 feet tall. See Figure 2. Building Disposition: The footprint requirement of 1-2 stories with minimum 20,000 square feet is met. Parking setbacks of 20 feet from the County Road ROW, 10 feet from the Highway 61 ROW, and 10 feet from interior lot lines, are met. Building setbacks of 30 feet from any lot line are met. The orientation of the building is appropriate. Figure 2: Page A-4.6, Exterior Elevations 7-23-26 submittal, Exterior Perspective 2. Section 9.7 “Sub-Zone Uses. Permitted Primary Uses in the Gateway District Subzones are determined by building Type as determined by this Ordinance. See Figures 16 & 17 for the allowable uses in each sub -zone, by building use.” Figure 17 in Ordinance 131 permits Automotive Dealerships through a zoning compliance review. Accessory uses such as sheds, supplemental repair, showrooms and outdoor storage require zoning compliance review. Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 5 Figure 3: City Gateway District Sub-Zone Map with Subject Properties outlined in blue. Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 6 Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan provided by the Applicant dated September 14, 2026 Section 18.4 Refuse. “All waste shall be kept in an enclosed building or property contained in a closed container designed for such purposes.” “In all non-residential districts, all commercial refuse containers shall be enclosed in a building or properly fenced or screened to prevent any refuse from spilling beyond the fenced or screened area and to prevent access by children or other unauthorized persons.” Section 18.8 Lighting Lighting must be arranged to deflect light from adjoining properties and streets. The height cannot exceed the maximum principal structure height (36 feet). Lighting to illuminate sales lots shall not exceed 120-foot candles at 36 inches off the ground. Proposed lighting will be directed downward. Lighting will be placed throughout the parking areas and against the building. Lighting poles will be 24 feet tall with a 3-foot base (27 feet total). Lighting placed on the building will be located 16 feet up. See Figure 7 for the proposed lighting style. The redevelopment of the Barnett Kia dealership in the Gateway District was approved in 2024. The Commission at that time discussed the intensity of the lighting at night. A condition of approval was: “The applicant must dim sales lot and parking lot lighting to 15% illuminance between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Said lighting shall be able to be motion-activated to 100% illuminance for security purposes.” The Commission should discuss whether this requirement should be applied to Apple Ford. Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 7 Figure 5. Lighting styles from the submitted 7-23-26 Lighting Proposal Zoning Text Amendment Section 17 Administration and Enforcement, Subsection 6 establishes the process for amending the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council may adopt amendments to this Ordinance provided that the amendment is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. T he applicant has submitted the following language to amend the Building Use Type 15a for Automotive Dealerships to add: Modification/Exclusion (18): The City Council may exempt Auto Dealerships from the Tree Preservation/Reforestation standards where strict compliance with the ordinance standards would prohibit reasonable development or redevelopment of the property. Figure 6. Building Type 15a: Automotive Dealership Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 8 Subsection 1 states that only applications for zoning amendment which meet one of the following conditions should be considered: 1. A mistake has been made in the original zoning which was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Municipal Plan adopted by the City which should now be corrected; or 2. Substantial changes have occurred within the City since the adoption of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan which changes should result in an amendment of both the zoning and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan; or 3. There shall exist a clear public need for a benefit to be derived from the proposed zoning which shall be greater than any benefit or convenience of the property owners. 4. Beyond a public need being evident, the application shall show that the public interest would be best served by rezoning the property in question and that the property in question is the best qualified to serve said public need; or 5. In the case of “down zoning” which would diminish the intensity of the current use to a less intensive use, the proposed zoning shall allow the property owners a reasonable use of their property under the terms of this ordinance as well as serve the public interest. The applicant narrative dated 9/15/2026 states: “We find that this request meets item C/3 above. The redevelopment plan will increase not only the value and aesthetics of the site, which leads to increased tax base for the City of Gem Lake, but it will also bring the site into compliance with all current City Code standards, including, but not limited to lighting, screening, and stormwater. The Zoning Text Amendment will also allow the City some additional discretion in reviewing auto dealerships in relation to Tree Preservation and Reforestation and allow for site specific review rather than strict code compliance, such as the items presented in our current outstanding applications. The Zoning Text Amendment will also allow the redevelopment of a site that will allow a Gem Lake business to grow, which increases the tax base for the City and provides another destination commercial use that will bring more people to surrounding businesses in the area.” Criteria 3 may apply to the applicant’s request. The proposed amendment does not impact nor is it applicable to the other automotive dealerships due to the lots recently being redeveloped or having few trees. The proposed designs from the applicant show a decrease in impervious surface coverage, an increase in landscaping, new lighting, improvements to stormwater and a modern building compared to the current site; the proposed building template would require other automotive dealerships to adhere to the same standards. Ord. No. 131, Section 17.6.4.2 includes criteria to review for amendments to the ordinance, with the Planner’s findings in italics. 1. Adjacent Uses. a. The proposed use on the applicant’s property would expand and add a coffee shop, so there are expected changes impacting adjacent uses. The proposed site design and tree removal would impact the buffer between the applicant’s properties and their neighbors than the current site. 2. Air and Water Quality. a. Air quality may be impacted with the amount of tree removal proposed. According to the MN DNR, Conserving Wooded Areas in Developing Communities Best Management Practices, trees play an important role in cleaning air. They trap dust, reducing the need to clean doors, windows, decks ,patios, and exterior walls. They also remove chemical pollutants, including carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds, from the atmosphere and release oxygen. By trapping carbon compounds, they reduce the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Wooded areas and trees influence water flow, filtration, runoff, soil erosion, and sediment control, and provide clean water. According to studies by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975), wooded areas reduce runoff by 5 percent to 35 percent. This red uction is less than mowed grass and pastured areas depending on soil types. They also increase water percolation and infiltration. This function is of great importance to communities that depend essentially on ground water. Water quality would be improved, as the site will have more impervious surfaces in addition to an underground stormwater retention facility. 3. Traffic Generations. Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 9 a. Traffic generation is expected to increase. Access to the site will be provided in three (3) locations, with the current right-in only access along County Road E planned to be closed . All study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with and without the proposed development. 4. Public Safety and Health. a. There are no changes expected to public safety and health. 5. Area Aesthetics. a. The area aesthetics would be improved under the proposed improvements by the applicant, with an improved building design than the current site. The commissioners should review and discuss whether additional changes are necessary. 6. Economic Impact on the Entire Area. a. The proposed amendment would be expected to have a positive economic impact on the surrounding area. The proposed site improvements could lead to more jobs, and an increase in tax base for the city. 7. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. a. The Gateway District is set-up to incentivize new and redevelopment of the land around the Highway 61 and County Road E intersection. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the Barnett properties (and other parcels east of Highway 61 and north of County Road E) as ‘Gateway Zone – Neighborhood Center’ within the Future Land Use Map, which is consistent with the Gateway zones outlined in the Consolidat ed Land Use Ordinance. The Neighborhood Center is guided for multi-story ‘mixed use’ developments, with commercial/retail on ground floors and residential on floors above. The Gateway District allows for building type templates to be amended to carry out new or redevelopment in the district. The western-most portion of the Gateway District, located along County Road E (west of the private Daniels Farm Road) will consist of single family residential in the one acre buffer between Gateway land and existing residential areas. Land Use Goals and Policies identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are included later in the report. Minor Subdivision It is the purpose of this section to make certain regulations and requirements for platting within the City of Gem Lake, pursuant to the authority contained in Minnesota Statutes, which regulations the City Council deems necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of this community. Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 10 Figure 7. Proposed Minor Subdivision dated 8/7/2026 Traffic A Traffic Impact Study (TIS), prepared by Transportation Collaborative and Consultants, LLC (TC2), dated 6/7/2026 and updated on 9/25/2026 incorporating comments from the City and MnDOT regarding the changes to the Highway 61 access and expanded land uses. The report findings are italicized: Existing conditions were reviewed within the study area to establish current traffic conditions to help determine impacts associated with the proposed development. These areas include: • Highway 61 and Apple Ford Access (Employee Only) • Highway 61 and County Road E • County Road E and International Drive • County Road E and West Apple Ford Access / Commercial Access • County Road E and Central Apple Ford Access • County Road E and East Apple Ford Access Five (5) years of crash history was reviewed from 2021 through 2025 using MnDOT data which identified 84 intersection-related crashes in the study area. 79 of the crashes were at the County Road E and Highway 61 intersection (including one pedestrian-related crash); no crashes occurred at any of the existing Apple Ford driveways during the review period. The project represents a redevelopment of the current Apple Ford facility, which totals about 88,580 square feet between several buildings. The proposed development is 144,310 square feet, about 60% larger than the existing building area with a 1,115 square foot coffee shop incorporated within the facility. Access will be provided in three (3) locations, with the current right-in only access along County Road E planned to be closed. The remaining Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 11 driveways, that are currently in use, will continue to be utilized after reconstruction; the current Highway 61 access will no longer be restricted to employees-only. The City is awaiting MnDOT formal review comments as this change was identified as requiring a (TIS) in the 1/12/2026 review letter attached to the packet. Figure 8. Existing Intersection Capacity from Traffic Impact Study prepared by Transportation Collaborative and Consultants, LLC (TC2) dated 9/25/2026 Figure 9. Existing and Proposed Trip Generation from Traffic Impact Study prepared by Transportation Collaborative and Consultants, LLC (TC2) dated 9/25/2026 Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 12 Figure 10. Proposed Intersection Capacity from Traffic Impact Study prepared by Transportation Collaborative and Consultants, LLC (TC2) dated 9/25/2026 The (TIS) also provided conclusions based on the analysis of MnDOT data including: 1. The number of crashes at the County Road E and Highway 61 intersection is significantly higher than locations with similar characteristics from a crash rate perspective (i.e., a critical index over 1.0); all other study intersections had crash and severity rates within the normal range. 2. All study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours; existing queues are generally maintained within the current roadway geometry except westbound queues along County Road E at Highway 61, which occasionally extend beyond the adjacent left- and right-turn lanes during the p.m. peak hour. 3. The proposed development is a 144,310 square foot auto dealership, which is about 60% larger than the total current building area. As part of the project, a 1,115 square foot coffee shop is planned to be incorporated within the facility to serve dealership patrons as well as the general public. 4. Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 no build and build conditions, which included a one -half (0.5) percent annual background growth and trip generation from the proposed development. a. The proposed development is estimated to generate 212 a.m. peak hour (126 in / 86 out), 177 p.m. peak hour (62 in / 115 out), and 2,400 daily (1,200 in / 1,200 out) trips. b. When compared to the existing dealership, the change in net new system trips associated with the proposed development is 64 a.m. peak hour (40 in / 24 out), 60 p.m. peak hour (20 in / 40 out), and 800 daily (400 in / 400 out) trips. 5. Key takeaways from the future year 2030 capacity analysis, include: a. All study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with and without the proposed development. b. Area queueing will remain relatively similar to the existing conditions; peak queues at the proposed site access locations are expected to range from two (2) to three (3) vehicles. c. No mitigation is needed The (TIS) identified considerations that the Planning Commission should consider as conditions of approval with the site redevelopment: 1. Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. 2. Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts. 3. Preserve the ability to accommodate a future multimodal facility (i.e., sidewalk or trail) along the north side of County Road E within the project site limits. With the Zoning Text Amendment proposing to add the Modification/Exclusion from the tree preservation requirements and as conditioned, the subdivision complies with the requirements of this section. Per subsection 6.4, prior to approval of a Minor Subdivision the City Council reserves the right to require any or all sections of this Ordinance to be applied. The Zoning Text Amendment would need to be approved in order to comply with subsection (9): a vegetation preservation and protection plan that shows those trees proposed to be removed, those to remain, the types and location of trees and other vegetation that are to be planted, and which indicates compliance with all attendant local ordinances. Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 13 The Minor Subdivision created by these proceedings shall be recorded with the County Register of Deeds within sixty (60) days after the date of approval by the City Council as a condition of approval. If not recorded within this time period, the approval of this subdivision by the City shall be considered void. Section 27. Tree Preservation. The applicant submitted a tree inventory, a landscaping plan, and a narrative description of their tree preservation plan in accordance with City Ordinance. The applicant also has applied for a Zoning Text Amendment to add a Modification/Exclusion exempting Automotive Dealerships from the Tree Preservation/Reforestation standards and cites strict compliance with the ordinance standards would prohibit development. The applicant states in the revised narrative dated September 15, 2026: “The Zoning Text Amendment will also allow the City some additional discretion in reviewing auto dealerships in relation to Tree Preservation and Reforestation and allow for site specific review rather than strict code compliance, such as the items presented in our current outstanding applications. The ZOTA will also allow the redevelopment of a site that will allow a Gem Lake business to grow, which increases the tax base for the City and provides another destination commercial use that will bring more people to surrounding businesses in the area.” There is currently a large stand of mature conifers between the existing Parcel 3 and 4. Few trees exist on the dealership parcels. A portion of the parcels are located in the Shoreland Management district, which has stricter regulations. The applicant included a description of their approach in the submittal. In summary, the applicant is proposing to replace the maximum feasible number of trees to promote healthy growth, will clean up the existing tree stands, remove invasive species and unhealthy plants. The applicant will voluntarily pay the city for parkl and dedication despite creating no new lots. See Figure 5 for planting locations. Figure 6 shows the total number of trees being preserved and removed in the shoreland and non-shoreland areas as well as the replacement factors as required by ordinance. The application includes the following statements from the developer, “In order to meet the requirements of removal and replacements needed, the development would need to supply over 1,500 new trees in addition to the 248 preserved trees on site and the more than 200 new trees proposed. This is not a feasible number for the proposed use, and the amount of space left would not be sufficient for these trees to grow, develop, and remain healthy. Instead, we propose the all of the following as an alternative for the City to review in terms of the landscape and tree preservation replacement provided. These include: 1. Replacing the maximum amount of feasible trees around and throughout the site in optimal locations. 2. Cleaning up and reestablishing the natural wetland area and buffers on the north side of the site. This will include removing invasive species and dead or unhealthy plants materials, reestablishing native plantings, planting additional native trees, and providing additional buffering along the portions that border the proposed edge of the site and parking lot. 3. Paying a portion of park dedication to the City despite being exempt from paying it as the project is not a full subdivision. We find this approach gives both the City and the property owner benefits in terms of development and design. These solutions above will help meet the intent of the Ordinance and promote new and improved development while removing unnecessary burdens that would not produce any additional benefit to the City. This plan also will leave the natural wetland and wooded area as a long-term buffer between residents to north and any future development on the remaining farm parcel along County Road E.” The tree preservation and landscape plan does not meet the requirements of Section 27 Tree Preservation, as presented in the current configuration. The applicant has a Zoning Text Amendment application proposing to include a Modification/Exclusion (18) to exempt Auto Dealerships from the Tree Preservation/Reforestation Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 14 standards where strict compliance with the ordinance standards would prohibit reasonable development or redevelopment of the property. Fee in lieu of parkland dedication is typically required when subdivision results in new lots. The amount is typically in an amount equal to 10% of the total acreage of the development or 10% of the pre-development land value. No parkland dedication fee is required with this application; however, the applicants may choose to make a voluntary payment. They expressed this as an option to support the city where they could not meet the requirements of the Tree Preservation ordinance. An amount should be discussed between the city and the applicant and included as a condition of approval, if desired. Zoning Compliance Section 9.2.2.2 states “All new construction, remodeling, or expansion… within the Gateway District requires a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Zoning Compliance Permit is indefinite in duration and the entitlements stated on the permit shall run with the land. A Zoning Compliance Permit is granted after determination that the proposal complies with all applicable standards set forth within this Section (Thoroughfare Standards, Civic Space Standards, Building Type Standards, Parking, and Design Standards).” Section 9.2.2.6 states “All applicants seeking a Zoning Compliance Permit must submit a development plan with their application.” Requirements for a development plan are found in Section 9. 7.2. Section 9.8 outlines the plans for re-development of a single lot. This process requires administrative approval, pending approval of the lot line adjustment and the ordinance amendments . All requirements are met in conjunction with the proposed subdivision/lot line adjustments. The Zoning compliance permit will be administratively approved contingent on an approved subdivision. If the subdivision is not approved, the zoning compliance permit will be reevaluated administratively for compliance. 2040 Comprehensive Plan The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan is the guide to physical growth and development in the City . The plan is used by the City to help evaluate private development proposals against the overall goals of this plan and is regarded as the general guide to the legal regulation of land development controlled by Ordinance 131, the Consolidated Land Use Ordinance. The existing commercial/business land uses in the City of Gem Lake are concentrated in and around the U.S. Highway 61/County Road E intersection. This includes two large car dealerships, other auto/motorcycle -oriented businesses, and a marine sales retailer. A small neighborhood bar, a coffee shop, and a floral retail establishment also exist in this area. There are approximately 41 acres in this category. A portion of the approximately 18-acre parcel on County Rd E is currently used for macro-agriculture, though zoned for mixed use/residential per the Gateway District zoning rules. The one-acre buffer continues east of Daniels Farm Road to the point where it ends against the land designated as open space under the conservation easement. Between the buffer, County Road E and the point where the Neighborhood Center sub-zone begins, exists the Neighborhood General and Neighborhood Mixed Use subzones totaling approximately 12 acres. Mixed use office space, retail, and residential may occur in this portion at a ratio of about 60% office, 20% commercial, and 20% residential. Land Use Goals and Policies identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that are not supported by the potential Zoning Text Amendment include: Goal #1: Protect and enhance the natural environment in the City of Gem Lake; Goal #9: Provide buffers using berms, trees, and other natural resources to insulate the residential areas of the City from noise, light pollution, and traffic. Policy #11: It is acknowledged that the character and natural environment of the City of Gem Lake depends on the continuance of natural vegetation within and along its borders. The City will encourage the continued planting Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 15 of new and the preservation of existing trees to sustain and improve the natural beauty of the community. The commissioners should review whether the proposed amendment will carry out the intent of the 2040 Plan and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use section. Public Comments The following public comments were received including a letter from the Daniels Farm Road Homeowners Association: • Debra Suhadolnik: 46 Summit Farm Lane has concerns about the lack of a buffer on the west end of Parcel 4 to protect properties from noise and commercial light from the business. The property owner is also concerned about the removal of the line of mature conifers violating tree preservation requirements as these serve as a natural barrier. Additional comments include examining the traffic flow and lighting impacts on the neighboring properties. • John Kuduk: 43 Summit Farm Lane is not in support of the Zoning Text Amendment and concerned with the car dealership is moving too far west from Highway 61. Primary concerns include exterior lighting for the parking lot impacting residential properties, traffic and safety related to larger car-carrier delivery trucks, noise pollution including public address system and mechanical work, and the value the tree canopy provides as a natural buffer. • Sue Hicks: 29 Summit Farm Lane has questions about how the proposed expansion benefits the City and its residents with interest in understanding the potential tax revenue compared to a residential development. The property owner is interested in opportunities to expand the existing trail and prairie areas and light pollution including operating hours. • The Daniels Farm Road Owners Association stated that their primary concern is the removal of hundreds of mature trees, many over 80 years old, which provide a natural buffer, visually and acoustically, between the existing dealership, Highway 61, County Road E, and nearby homes. The Association requests that the project complies with the City’s tree preservation ordinance or propose reasonable alternatives that preserve and mitigate the removal of the existing trees. Other comments include the desire to preserve the field, wetland areas, and watershed functions in as natural a condition as possible through a conservation easement. The Association also commented on the need for effective protections and screenings along the north and west of the property to protect against noise and light pollution. Examples include a well-designed wall or fence to block headlights, downward and shielded lighting, automatic dimming or shutoff during overnight hours, and reasonable controls on construction and operating noise. o Alan and Beverly Bergstrom: 17 Daniels Farm Road support this letter. o Anthony Scornavacco and Michael Garrett: 7 Daniels Farm Road support this letter. o John L. Kuny: 9 Daniels Farm Road supports this letter. o Sherri and Ben Johnson: 11 Daniels Farm Road supports this letter. o Stephanie Farrell: 21 Daniels Farm Road supports this letter. o Tom and Laura Rasmussen: 3 Daniels Farm Road supports this letter. o Beth and Jim Tschidi: 5 Daniels Farm Road support this letter. ▪ Beth and Jim Tschidi had additional comments and concerns. The owners are not in support of the Zoning Text Amendment to exempt Building Type 15a – Automotive Dealership from the requirements of the Tree Preservation ordinance with comments on how the proposed ordinance amendment meets the intent of the conditions in Section 17.6.4.1 of Ordinance 131. The owners also have questions about the impervious surface coverage and how the open space can be maintained as a condition of approval as a conservation easement. The owners also have concerns about whether Section 18.10 Performance Standards applies and addresses a potential conflict with Section 18.17 where loading berths for trucks over two tons within 100 feet of a residence district are to be enclosed and require loading audible in a residential district to stop between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. The owners had questions about how the measurements of the tree inventory were prepared as 383 of the 406 red pines carry the identical entry of 14 inches and 70 feet with the desire to see the methodology and sample included on the tree preservation plan. The Planning Commission should consider addressing transport-truck deliveries, car wash and service-bay doors on the west side, and outdoor paging or public address systems on the hours of use as well as conditioning the outdoor speakers. The Planning Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 16 Commission should also consider adding a dimming requirement and a post-completion affidavit from a registered lighting engineer confirming the lighting has a 3000K maximum color temperature. Staff Comments The project plans were forwarded to staff and other agencies for comments. The City Attorney is reviewing the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and will provide comments. The following comments were received: ▪ Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is reviewing the applications and will provide comments. Prior correspondence dated January 12, 2026, MnDOT requires a Traffic Impact Study with the proposed expansion of the Apple Auto Group facility. The TIS should analyze the impacts of converting the current employee restricted access to US 61 to an unrestricted public access. The site layout shall clearly show the MnDOT ROW limits and access control. Please coordinate with MnDOT Surveys (Keith Jajober, 651-775-0970 or keith.jakober@state.mn.us) to obtain line work along US 61; questions about this comment should be addressed to (Chinou Vue, 651-234-7570 or chinou.vue@state.mn.us). MnDOT requires an access permit for work on access to US 61. Additionally, any other use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will require a permit. Permits can be applied for at this site (https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/). A MnDOT drainage permit is required before development occurs. The permit applicant shall demonstrate that the off-site runoff entering MnDOT drainage system(s) and/or right of way will not increase. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted online to: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload this letter with the drainage permit application. The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: o Grading plans, drainage plans, and hydraulic calculations demonstrating that proposed flows to MnDOT right of way remain the same as existing conditions or are reduced. o Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows and labeling that corresponds with the submitted calculations. o Hydro CAD model and PDF of output for the 2, 10, and 100-year Atlas 14 storm events. Once a drainage permit application is submitted, a thorough review will be completed and additional information may be requested. ▪ Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) reviewed the application and does not have comments. ▪ Ramsey County is reviewing the application and will have final comments on 10/12/2026. Ramsey County has the following preliminary comments for the applicant and Planning Commission: o Valley gutters are present at the existing entrances. The proposed plan details do not appear show valley gutters going back in, but they should be reinstalled per the appropriate County detail. 2) At the easterly entrance that is being removed, remove and replace the existing valley gutter, with curb and gutter to match the adjacent curb and gutter on CR E. o Permits are needed for closure of existing accesses, new commercial accesses, stormwater connections, once approved, sanitary connection, and City water connection. ▪ Vadnais Heights Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO) has no comments. Wetland delineation was approved on 7/14/2026. ▪ City of Vadnais Heights provided a memo dated 8/7/2026 identifying comments to be incorporated into conditions of approval: o The City of Vadnais Heights requires plumbing permits and inspections for the proposed public water connection with separate meters required for domestic, irrigation, fire protection and car wash uses for billing purposes. Ramsey County may require right-of-way permits, and copies must be submitted with the plumbing permit applications. Please submit any revised plans prepared for final approval so the City of Vadnais Heights can review and comment on them. Because of the ongoing White Bear Lake water level litigation, the proposed car wash facility must include a water-recycling system. Please provide details on the recycling rate for further review and comment. The applicant provided a letter included in the packet from the current carwash with the total Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 17 usage on site and compared to the proposed plan for overall usage. While number of washes is expected to go up, the new system will have a percentage of water reuse that will lead to an overall reduction in water usage for the new carwash. The existing car wash on site has no water reusage in place today, and the proposed system will. Included in the submittal are letters from Broadway confirming these numbers on the existing and proposed systems. The overall reduction is expected to be roughly 61.1% in yearly water usage. The following table provides a comparison of existing usage and washes compared to the expected for the car wash: Figure 11: Existing and Proposed Car Wash – Number of Washes per day, Gallons per wash, day, and year. ▪ Fire Department (City of White Bear Lake) requires a turning radius overlay sheet in the plan-set and all new fire hydrants shall have the large diameter discharge port configured as: 5” Storz connection with cap, which the applicant has provided on 9/18/2026 in a turning exhibit and detail included in the packet. ▪ Building Official has no comments. ▪ City Engineer reviewed the applications and provided a memo dated 8/25/2026 outlining the general site and stormwater comments. The memo was updated on 9/25/2026 to reflect the remaining items still outstanding and will be incorporated as a condition of approval. ▪ City Attorney is reviewing the application and will provide comments. ACTION The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3. Table the request for further review/study. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the request for a zoning text amendment, minor subdivision of 1491, 1485, and 0 County Road E East, and 3651 Highway 61 resulting in two lots and a zoning compliance certificate to allow for redevelopment of a car dealership to allow for Minnesota Department of Transportation and Ramsey County to complete their reviews, the City Engineer comments to be addressed, and staff evaluation of the alternatives proposed. Attachments: Project Narrative Apple Ford Response to Comments dated 9/14/2026 Apple Ford Response to Comments dated 9/28/2026 Minor Subdivision Application Zoning Compliance Certificate Application Zoning Text Amendment Application Existing and Proposed Legal Descriptions Existing and Proposed Conditions Technical Evaluation Panel Form dated 6/24/2026 Apple Ford Redevelopment Request – Minor Subdivision, Zoning Compliance Certificate, and Zoning Text Amendment Gem Lake Planning Commission 10/6/26 September 30, 2026 Page 18 Notice of Decision (VLAWMO) dated 7/14/2026 Photometric Plan dated 7/23/2026 Tree Inventory dated 7/24/2026 Civil Plan Set (Grading, Utility, Landscape, etc.) dated 9/14/2026 Stormwater Management Plan dated 9/14/2026 Fire Truck Turning Exhibit dated 9/18/2026 Traffic Impact Study dated 9/25/2026 Current and Proposed Water Usage Public Hearing Notice – Newspaper Public Hearing Notice – Neighborhood Mailing List City Engineer Memo dated 8/25/2026 City Engineer Memo dated 9/25/2026 Ramsey County Comments dated 10/1/2026 MnDOT Review S25-047 Apple Auto Group dated 1/12/2026 City of Vadnais Heights – Apple Ford Review Memo dated 08/7/2026 Written Comment from Daniels Farm Road Homeowners Association Written Comment from Alan and Beverly Bergstrom - 17 Daniel Farm Road Written Comment from Anthony Scornavacco - Michael Garrett 7 Daniels Farm Road Written Comment from Beth and Jim Tschida - 5 Daniels Farm Road Written Comment from Debra Suhadolnik - 46 Summit Farm Lane Written Comment from John Kuduk - 43 Summit Farm Lane Written Comment from John L. Kuny - 9 Daniels Farm Road Written Comment from Sherri & Ben Johnson - 11 Daniels Farm Road Written Comment from Stephanie Farrell - 21 Daniels Farm Road Written Comment from Sue Hicks - 29 Summit Farm Lane Written Comment from Tom & Laura Rasmussen 3 Daniels Farm Road CIS:ATB TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment .............................................................................................................................. 1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Contact Information ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Apple Autos Ford, Gem Lake, MN September 15, 2026 GAG26002 1 Introduction On behalf of Apple Autos, Landform is pleased to submit this new application for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA). This ZOTA application is in addition to the two separate and pending applications already submitted and under review on the Apple Ford White Bear Lake Dealership at 1493 County Rd E, including: 1. Minor Subdivision 2. Zoning Compliance Permit. This ZOTA is requested to address tree preservation and reforestation challenges related to our current Zoning Compliance Permit application. We are excited about the improvements proposed for this site. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment We are requesting a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to modify Building Type 15a, Automotive Dealership, found in Section 9.6.15a of the Gem Lake City Code under the Consolidated Land Use Ordinance No. 131. Specifically, we are requesting the following language be added under “Modifications/ Exclusion”: 18. Section 27.9 – The City Council may exempt Auto Dealerships from the Tree Preservation Reforestation standards where strict compliance with the ordinance standards would prohibit reasonable development or redevelopment of the property. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are allowed and reviewed under Section 17.6 of Ordinance 131. First, an applicant should demonstrate it meets one of the following criteria: 1. Only applications for zoning amendment which meet one of the following conditions should be considered: a. A mistake has been made in the original zoning which was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Municipal Plan adopted by the City which should now be corrected; or b. Substantial changes have occurred within the City since the adoption of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan which changes should result in an amendment of both the zoning and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan; or c. There shall exist a clear public need for a benefit to be derived from the proposed zoning which shall be greater than any benefit or convenience of the property owners. d. Beyond a public need being evident, the application shall show that the public interest would be best served by rezoning the property in question and that the property in question is the best qualified to serve said public need; or e. In the case of “down zoning” which would diminish the intensity of the current use to a less intensive use, the proposed zoning shall allow the property owners a reasonable use of their property under the terms of this ordinance as well as serve the public interest. We find that this request meets item C above. The redevelopment plan will increase not only the value and aesthetics of the site, which leads to increased tax base for the City of Gem Lake, but it will also bring the site into compliance with all current City Code standards, including, but not limited to lighting, screening, and stormwater. Apple Autos Ford, Gem Lake, MN September 15, 2026 GAG26002 2 The ZOTA will also allow the City some additional discretion in reviewing auto dealerships in relation to Tree Preservation and Reforestation and allow for site specific review rather than strict code compliance, such as the items presented in our current outstanding applications. The ZOTA will also allow the redevelopment of a site that will allow a Gem Lake business to grow, which increases the tax base for the City and provides another destination commercial use that will bring more people to surrounding businesses in the area. Additionally, with any ZOTA request, the Planning Commission and City Council should review the following items from Section 17.6.4.2: 2. When reviewing a zoning amendment applications, impact on the following criteria shall be reviewed and measured by the Planning Commission and City Council: a. Adjacent Uses; and The proposed ZOTA would not negatively affect adjacent uses as development in the Gateway Zoning District is intended to be flexible and based on specific building types. Surrounding residential is either already screened with existing unaffected landscaping or will be screened by new landscaping required to be provided by Section 18.6 (Landscaping) of the City Code. This ZOTA would not affect neighboring properties outside of the Gateway and would still require any development of this building type to provide screening and follow all other applicable ordinances. b. Air and Water Quality; and The proposed ZOTA would not impact air and water quality. The site improvements would enhance stormwater facilities on site and would not exempt a user of Building Type 15a from landscape requirements generally. Additionally, only the lots identified in our Zoning Compliance Permits are affected as the other lots have recently redeveloped or have few trees. c. Traffic Generations; and This ZOTA would have little to no impact on traffic generation. The site plan will generate similar amounts of traffic independent of this ZOTA, and this is explored in detail in the already sent Traffic Impact Study. d. Public Safety and Health; and The ZOTA would only allow Building Type 15a to have flexibility from Tree Preservation. The site improvements would increase public safety and health through enhanced buffering and removal of harmful or invasive species with reseeding in a natural area, and other possible additions to the proposed landscape plan. e. Area Aesthetics; and The ZOTA will allow a development proposal that will greatly improve the aesthetics of the existing use and provide a more modern and cleaner look. There are two other lots that currently meet the requirements of Building Type 15a that would be affected by this ZOTA. These two lots are both built out and contain almost no trees. Apple Autos Ford, Gem Lake, MN September 15, 2026 GAG26002 3 f. Economic Impact on the Entire Area; and The ZOTA will allow a development proposal that will transform the existing use on site and provide a significant economic impact for Gem Lake and the surrounding areas by allowing an existing business to stay in Gem Lake and grow. This will add jobs and increase the tax base in the City. g. Consistency with the Comprehensive Municipal Plan; and The ZOTA is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This Gateway Future Land Use type promotes the use of PUDs to provide creative and specific development to an area. No PUD is required for this building type, so this flexibility through the proposed ZOTA would give the City discretion in exploring alternative plans with Tree Preservation and allow for flexible development on the site. Finally, the specific standards for the City Council consideration are found in Section 17.6.7: Action by City Council. … In considering the application, the City Council shall determine that the proposed Conditional or Interim Use: 1. Will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare; The ZOTA for Building Type 15a is intended to allow flexible development that will promote public health, safety, and general welfare. This change will not be detrimental to other uses in the area. The other lots that would qualify for the Building Type 15a are either recently redeveloped or vacant with few trees found on site. 2. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The Comprehensive Plan expects and promotes that all developments in the mixed use future land use district be zoned Gateway and that flexible and effective development outcomes are achieved. This ZOTA is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, allowing the City to work with a developer and achieve a more effective plan using more creative methods. 3. Is in compliance with this Ordinance. The ZOTA would not violate any other sections of code and is specifically targeted to the site of the proposed development applications. While it would apply to any Building Type 15a proposal, there are few trees in the potential sites beyond what is found on the proposed development site. We find we meet the standards for a ZOTA in the City of Gem Lake as discussed above. This ZOTA as proposed would modify Building Type 15a, Automotive Dealership, and would apply to all lots that currently meet the location requirements for this building type. That list includes only two other parcels in Gem Lake, beyond the ones from our outstanding development proposals. They are as follows: - 273022430038: The Barnett Kia site that is in the middle of development to update the dealership on site. Almost no trees are found on site beyond street trees. - 273022430037: An existing commercial business that also has few trees beyond the street trees on the edges. As seen, all current lots that would be affected by this ZOTA are either undergoing redevelopment now or have few trees on site. Apple Autos Ford, Gem Lake, MN September 15, 2026 GAG26002 4 We find this approach gives both the City and the property owner benefits in terms of development and design. These solutions above will help meet the intent of the Ordinance and promote new and improved development while removing unnecessary burdens that would not produce much additional benefit to the City. This plan also will leave the natural wetland and wooded area as a long-term buffer between residents to the north and any future development on the remaining farm parcel along County Road E. Summary We respectfully request approval of this new application for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for Building Type 15a as defined above. We ask to be placed on the October 6, 2026 Planning Commission meeting with the two other pending applications related to this property. We are excited to work with the City of Gem Lake on this redevelopment opportunity. Contact Information This document was prepared by: Zeke Peters, AICP Landform 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Steve Sabraski at ssabraski@landform.net or 612.638.0243. Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. 1 DATE September 14, 2026 TO Andrew Boucher – City of Gem Lake Community Planner CC Justin Gese, PE City of Gem Lake Engineer FROM Steve Sabraski, PE RE Apple Ford White Bear Lake – Development Submittal 8/10/26 Review Comments SEH No. GEMLK 171858 14.00 Mr. Boucher, Below is a list of compiled comments from the 07/24/2026 submittal for the Apple Ford Redevelopment Project. Responses to the comments can be found below in italics. I. City of Gem Lake General Site comments 1. Provide water service connection after the hydrant tee near County Rd. E with 10”x8” reducer. Install a new gate valve near the right of way. Landform Response: Water connection has been updated to match request 2. Call out tip out curb throughout grading plan. Landform Response: Tip out curbing added to plan 3. Provide paving section information throughout the site along with GE values. Landform Response: Paving sections are referenced in the notes on sheet C3.1 and are based on recommendations from geotechnical engineer. Refer to geotech report for recommendations. 4. Provide review acceptance letter from MnDOT, Ramsey County, Vadnais Heights, Fire Department, and MN Dept. of Health. Landform Response: Will be provided once received. Stormwater comments 5. Coverage under the MPCA’s Construction Stormwater (CSW) General Permit must be obtained prior to any land disturbing activities. Landform Response: Permit to be applied for MEMO Memo 2 6. Provide documentation from Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District that the project is not within their jurisdiction given that that the project is located right on the boundary and some drainage appears to flow south, outside of the VLAWMO area. Landform Response: RWMWD has provided written response to the City indicating that this project falls outside their jurisdiction. 7. Prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and SWPPP Consistent with the MPCA’s CSW Permit and Gem Lake City Code Section 22 Landform Response: SWPPP has been added to the plan set 8. Include tabulated data in the Stormwater Plan identifying the following (in acres): a. Disturbed Area b. New Impervious Area c. Fully Reconstructed Impervious Area d. Required Water Quality Volume Landform Response: Values added to the stormwater report. 9. Ensure all pipes have adequate capacity for 10-year runoff. Landform Response: Calculations provided are designed for 10-yr storm intensities 10. Describe pre-treatment. Note that per Gem Lake City Code Section 22.2.3.6 all permanent stormwater management facilities with discharge points to wetlands must include pre-treatment. Landform Response: Sump manholes have now been indicated on the plan for pretreatment. 11. Describe energy dissipation at outfalls to ponding areas and discharge points. Landform Response: Rip-rap added to all above ground stormwater discharge points 12. HydroCAD reports and Pond Design Worksheet have inconsistent drainage areas. Revise as appropriate. Landform Response: Areas have been revised and checked to now match and be consistent. 13. Provide additional narrative, plan information, and details on the underground stormwater chamber system. The stormwater plan refers to this as ‘underground detention basin with filtration’. As presently shown, it does not appear to meet the minimum depth requirements for detention as listed in the CSW Permit and it is unclear why the Pond Design Worksheet does not show the discharge rate for water quality volume. The ‘underground ponding system’ detail does not seem to support filtration through the entire section. Landform Response: The underground system is CMP detention that outlets to a Manufactured Treatment Device (MTD) that will filter the stormwater discharge. A weir at the outlet will control the volume sent to the MTD which will be set at the required elevation to treat the minimum required stormwater as required by Gem Lake stormwater rules (1.1” over the impervious surface). Stormwater narrative has been updated to describe the water volume being treated by the MTD. 14. Submit information consistent with the requirements of per Gem Lake City Code Section 22.2.5. Landform Response: Maintenance Agreement will be provided at a later date. 15. Submit entire WCA Notice of Decision (including attachments) so compliance can be verified. Landform Response: WCA notice of decision will be provided with all attachments. Memo 3 II. City of Vadnais Heights 1. The City of Vadnais Heights requires plumbing permits and inspections for the proposed public water connection. Landform Response: Permits will be applied to Vadnais Heights for public water connection. Note added to Utility plan for inspections. 2. Ramsey County may require right-of-way permits, and copies must be submitted with the plumbing permit applications. Landform Response: Right of Way Permit to be acquired at a later date. 3. Public water connections must include separate meters for billing purposes. These connections may include separate metering for domestic, irrigation, fire protection and car wash uses. Landform Response: Note added to plan that separate metering will be required. 4. Because of the ongoing White Bear Lake water level litigation, the proposed car wash facility must include a water- recycling system. Please provide details on the recycling rate for further review and comment. Landform Response: Details on water recycling system to be provided at a later date. 5. Final plans should include the required DIP reducer and DIP sleeve at the planned connection to the City’s watermain. Landform Response: Plan updated to show this at connection. 6. Please submit any revised plans prepared for final approval so the City of Vadnais Heights can review and comment on them. Landform Response: Noted. III. Ramsey County 1. Provide more detail on the connection to the County drainage systems at STM Connection 700. As proposed the invert is higher than the existing conditions and will obstruct drainage from the County CB to the east. Landform Response: The inlet #700 into the existing manhole is coming in at a 960.06 and does not impact any existing inlets or the outlet that are going into the structure. There will be no impact to the existing catch basin to the east as it will sit higher than that existing inlet. 2. Conflict between the HydroCAD results and HWL shown on plans - which is correct and where does the EOF discharge? To the US 61 ditch or Co Rd E drainage system? Landform Response: Conflict resolved and data now matches the models. The EOF as shown on sheet C3.1 is at a 963.84 and will be discharged to the US HWY 61 ditch and run North. The 100-yr HWL of the pond is below the EOF. Memo 4 Sincerely, Steve Sabraski, P.E. Memo 2 Summary We are excited to continue working with the City of Gem Lake and applicable agencies on this plan as it is developed. We look forward to the continued Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and for an opportunity to discuss and explore the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments on October 6, 2026. ENCL: Broadway Letters Updated TIS Report EXISTING PID NO. 273022340007 – 19.561 ACRES GROSS AREA That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, distant 874.07 feet west of the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 03 seconds 30 seconds East a distance of 443.00 feet; thence west, parallel with said South line of the Southwest Quarter, for a distance of 560 feet, more or less, to the northerly extension of the center line of Internation al Drive (being a line lying 30 feet westerly of, and parallel with, the West line of Lot 3, Block 1, VADNAIS HEIGHTS SPORTS COMPLEX, according to the recorded plat thereof); thence southerly along said extended center line for a distance of 443 feet to said South line of the Southwest Quarter; thence east along said South line for a distance of 562 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. AND That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, distant 874.07 feet west of the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 03 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 443.00 feet to the point of beginning of that parcel of land to be described: thence continuing North 00 degrees 03 minutes, 30 seconds East a distance of 696.59 feet more or less to the Southerly line of premises described in deed recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, Minnesota in Book “1453” of Deeds, Page 152, thence Westerly along the Southerly line of premises described in Book “1453” of Deeds, Page 152, and said line extended to the Easterly line of premises described in Deed recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in Book “1454” of Deeds, Page 213; thence South 50 degrees 50 minutes West, a distance of 46.61 feet; thence South 68 degrees 31 minutes West, a distance of 85 feet; thence North 72 degrees 03 minutes West, a distance of 52 feet; thence South 26 degrees 20 minutes West a distance of 210.5 feet; thence South at right angles to the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 886 feet to the South line of said Southwest Quarter, thence East along the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 256 feet more or less, to the northerly extension of the center line of International Drive (being a line lying 30 feet westerly of, and parallel with the West line of Lot 3, Block 1, VADNAIS HEIGHTS SPORTS COMPLEX, according to the recorded plat thereof); thence no rtherly along said extended center line for a distance of 443.00 feet; thence east, parallel with said South line of the Southwest Quarter, for a distance of 560 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom a 40 foot strip of land, the Westerly and Northerly line of which is described as follows: beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter of said Section 27 distant 935 feet East of the Southwest Corner of said Section 27; thence North at right angles to said South line 886 feet; thence North 26 degrees 20 minutes East 210.5 feet; thence South 72 degrees 03 minutes East 52 feet; thence North 68 degrees 31 minutes East, 85 feet; thence North 50 degrees 50 minutes East to the extended South line of premises described in said Book “1453” Deeds, Page 152. Together with an easement for road purposes, in common with others, over and across the last above described 40 foot strip of land. Abstract Property EXISTING PID NO. 273022340006 AND 273022340009 – 7.614 ACRES GROSS AREA That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, distant 349.48 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence continue West on the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 524.59 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 857.27 feet to a point hereinafter known as Point “A”; thence East a distance of 191 feet on a line which passes through a point 709.07 feet Easterly of aforesaid Point “A” and 856.84 feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter as measured along the East line thereof; thence deflect to the right on an angle of 87 degrees 38 minutes 13 seconds and to a point distant 519 feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter as measured along the East line thereof; thence East parallel with the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 126.71 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 93.20 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Southwest Qu arter a distance of 55 feet; thence South parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 114.20 feet; thence South 84 degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 29 feet; thence South 0 degrees 2 minutes 30 seconds West (assumed bearing) parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 51 feet; thence North 88 degrees 35 minutes 22 seconds East a distance of 89.55 feet; thence Southerly to the point of beginning. Abstract Property PROPOSED PID NO. 273022340007 – 11.271 ACRES GROSS AREA That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, distant 874.07 feet west of the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 03 seconds 30 seconds East, parallel with the east line of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1139.59 feet more or less to the Southerly line of premises described in deed recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, Minnesota in Book “1453” of Deeds, Page 152, thence Westerly along the Southerly line of premises described in Book “1453” of Deeds, Page 152, and said line extended to the Easterly line of premises described in Deed recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in Book “1454” of Deeds, Page 213; thence South 50 degrees 50 minutes West, a distance of 46.61 feet; thence South 68 degrees 31 minutes West, a distance of 85 feet; thence North 72 degrees 03 minutes West, a distance of 52 feet; thence South 26 degrees 20 minutes West a distance of 210.5 feet; thence South at right angles to the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 886 feet to the South line of said Southwest Quarter, thence East along the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 817.48 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom a 40 foot strip of land, the Westerly and Northerly line of which is described as follows: beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter of said Section 27 distant 935 feet East of the Southwest Corner of said Section 27; thence North at right angles to said South line 886 feet; thence North 26 degrees 20 minutes East 210.5 feet; thence South 72 degrees 03 minutes East 52 feet; thence North 68 degrees 31 minutes East, 85 feet; thence North 50 degrees 50 minutes East to the extended South line of premises described in said Book “1453” Deeds, Page 152. All lying westerly and southerly of Line A described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, distant 874.07 feet west of the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence westerly 143.08 feet along said south line to the point of beginning of said Line A to be described; thence North 00 degrees 03 minutes 30 seconds East, parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 772.84 feet; thence west, parallel with said south line of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 635.35 feet, more or less, to the east line of said 40 foot strip thereof and said Line A there terminating. Together with an easement for road purposes, in common with others, over and across the last above described 40 foot strip of land. PROPOSED PID NO. 273022340006 AND 273022340009 – 15.904 ACRES GROSS AREA That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 30, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, distant 874.07 feet west of the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 03 seconds 30 seconds East, parallel with the east line of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 1139.59 feet more or less to the Southerly line of premises described in deed recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, Minnesota in Book “1453” of Deeds, Page 152, thence Westerly along the Southerly line of premises described in Book “1453” of Deeds, Page 152, and said line extended to the Easterly line of premises described in Deed recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in Book “1454” of Deeds, Page 213; thence South 50 degrees 50 minutes West, a distance of 46.61 feet; thence South 68 degrees 31 minutes West, a distance of 85 feet; thence North 72 degrees 03 minutes West, a distance of 52 feet; thence South 26 degrees 20 minutes West a distance of 210.5 feet; thence South at right angles to the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 886 feet to the South line of said Southwest Quarter, thence East along the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 817.48 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom a 40 foot strip of land, the Westerly and Northerly line of which is described as follows: beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter of said Section 27 distant 935 feet East of the Southwest Corner of said Section 27; thence North at right angles to said South line 886 feet; thence North 26 degrees 20 minutes East 210.5 feet; thence South 72 degrees 03 minutes East 52 feet; thence North 68 degrees 31 minutes East, 85 feet; thence North 50 degrees 50 minutes East to the extended South line of premises described in said Book “1453” Deeds, Page 152. All lying easterly and northerly of Line A described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, distant 874.07 feet west of the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter; thence westerly 143.08 feet along said south line to the point of beginning of said Line A to be described; thence North 00 degrees 03 minutes 30 seconds East, parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 772.84 feet; thence west, parallel with said south line of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 635.35 feet, more or less, to the east line of said 40 foot strip thereof and said Line A there terminating. Together with an easement for road purposes, in common with others, over and across the last above described 40 foot strip of land. AND That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 30 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, distant 349.48 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence continue West on the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 524.59 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 857.27 feet to a point hereinafter known as Point “A”; thence East a distance of 191 feet on a line which passes through a point 709.07 feet Easterly of aforesaid Point “A” and 856.84 feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter as measured along the East line thereof; thence deflect to the right on an angle of 87 degrees 38 minutes 13 seconds and to a point distant 519 feet North of the South line of said Southwest Quarter as measured along the East line thereof; thence East parallel with the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 126.71 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 93.20 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 55 feet; thence South parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 114.20 feet; thence South 84 degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 29 feet; thence South 0 degrees 2 minutes 30 seconds West (assumed bearing) parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 51 feet; thence North 88 degrees 35 minutes 22 seconds East a distance of 89.55 feet; thence Southerly to the point of beginning. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Technical Evaluation Panel Form TEP Form Template provided by MN Board of Water & Soil Resources – 10/13/2025 Local Government Unit: Vadnais Lake Area WMO County: Ramsey Landowner/Applicant Name: Landform Professional Services Project Location/Name: 1491 County Rd E / 5.2026 Meeting Type (check all that apply): ☐ In-Person, not onsite. Specify Date(s): ☒ Onsite Review. Specify Date(s): 6/24/2026 ☐ Electronic Exchanges (email, zoom, teams, etc.) ☐ Other. Specify: [insert] Purpose: ☐ Pre-Application Review ☒ Application Review (related to WCA decision) ☐ Local Government Road Wetland Replacement Program Eligibility ☐ Other. Specify: [insert] Findings and Recommendations: TEP met onsite with delineator to review 7 wetlands, 3 areas showing wet signature and 1 suspicious area (SP2-2up) within the 33.57 acre project site. TEP determined the 3 wet signature areas were Non-Wetland per decision matrix and onsite review. TEP agreed suspicious area (SP2-2up) was non wetland due to lack of vegetation indicators. TEP had no changes to wetlands 1, 3, 4, and 5. TEP requested that the southwest portion of wetland 2’s boundary be pulled out to include area of hydric vegetation and to include a data sheet for that area. TEP also requested that the lower southwest side of wetland 2 be pulled out to more closely follow the 964 contour line. TEP requested the northern portion of wetland 6’s boundary be moved out to follow hydric vegetation line. TEP requested the lower west portion of wetland 7 be extended if not determined to be incidental through aerial review. Delineator will make these requested changes and send a revised delineation. Attachments (if applicable): [insert] Public Waters/Shoreland (check all that apply): ☐ Project/Activity may affect Public Waters ☐ Project/Activity may occur within a shoreland protection zone Signatures LGU TEP Member: Name: Brian Corcoran Date signed: 6/29/2026 Signature: ☒ I agree with Findings and Recommendations ☐ I disagree with Findings and Recommendations Comments (optional): [insert] SWCD TEP Member: Name: Phoebe Brown Date signed: Signature: ☐ Not applicable, SWCD and LGU TEP member are the same ☐ I agree with Findings and Recommendations ☐ I disagree with Findings and Recommendations Comments (optional): [insert] 6/29/2026 Notice of Application Template provided by MN Board of Water & Soil Resources – 9/17/2025 BWSR TEP Member: Name: Ben Meyer Date signed: Signature: ☐ I agree with Findings and Recommendations ☐ I disagree with Findings and Recommendations Comments (optional): [insert] DNR TEP Member: Name: [insert] Date signed: [insert] Signature: [insert] ☐ I agree with Findings and Recommendations ☐ I disagree with Findings and Recommendations Comments (optional): [insert] 6/29/26 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act NOTICE OF DECISION Notice of Decision Template provided by MN Board of Water & Soil Resources – 10/13/2025 Date this Notice was sent: 7/14/26 Local Government Unit: Vadnais Lake Area WMO County: Ramsey Applicant and (if applicable) Applicant’s Representative: Mary Clare McAleer - Kjolhaug Project Name/Number: 1491 County Rd E / 5.2026 Type of Decision (check all that apply): Note: Boundary/type, sequencing, replacement plan, and bank plan decisions require an associated notice of application prior to the decision being made. ☒ Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing (submitted separately from a replacement plan) ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan ☒ Exemption Identify which exemption by Rule or Statute Citation: [8420.0415 – (A) incidental] ☐ No-Loss Identify which provision by Rule or Statute Citation: [] Decision: Note: All replacement plan approvals are conditional upon confirmation from BWSR of withdrawal of specified credits and/or financial assurance received for project- specific replacement. ☐ Denied ☒ Approved. Valid for ☒ 5 yrs (default); ☐ Other. Specify: [insert] ☐ Approved with Conditions List Conditions: [insert] Valid for ☐ 5 yrs (default); ☐ Other. Specify: [insert] LGU Representative Name & Signature: Brian Corcoran Decision Timeline An LGU must approve or deny a request within 60 days of receiving a complete application per MINN. STAT. § 15.99. Date Complete Application Received: 5/29/26 Date of Decision: 7/14/26 If applicable, date of written extension to 60-day decision timeline & number of days extended: Reason for Extension (check one): [insert] ☐ Other process or decision required to occur before WCA decision. Describe: [insert] ☐ Additional information and/or revision to application submitted. ☐ Applicant request. ☐ Other. Describe: [insert] Notice of Decision Template provided by MN Board of Water & Soil Resources – 10/13/2025 Date & number of days extended for any additional written extensions agreed to by the applicant: [insert] Decision Summary Technical Evaluation Panel Recommendation (check one): ☐ No recommendation ☒ Approval or approval with conditions (TEP FOF attached) ☐ Denial (attach recommendation) LGU Findings (check all that apply): ☒ Findings attached ☒ Findings: [Summary: Approved 7 wetland boundaries and types after revisions from 6/24/2026 on site TEP meeting. 3 areas showing wet signature and 1 suspicious area (SP2-2up) were determined to be non wetland. The southwest portion of wetland 7 was determined to be incidental wetland created in upland and was verified through aerial photos from the 1990’s showing healthy pines planted through the road ditch/incidental portion of wetland 7. Revised delineation attached. ☒ Other attachments. Specify: revised delineation For Replacement Plan Decisions Only: Total wetland impacts requiring replacement (acres): [insert] Type of wetland replacement (check all that apply): ☐ Project-Specific. Number of Credits: [insert] ☐ Banking. Number of Credits by Bank Account #: [insert] Notice Distribution Notice Recipients (check all that apply): ☒ SWCD TEP Member (if different from LGU): Phoebe Brown ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Ben Meyer ☒ DNR Representative: Dan Scollan ☐ Watershed District or WMO (if applicable): [insert] ☐ bank.administrator.bwsr@state.mn.us (Bank Plan Decisions Only) ☐ Applicant: ☒ Applicant’s Representative (if applicable): Mary Clare McAleer ☐ Members of the Public Requesting Notices (if applicable): [insert] ☐ Others: [insert] Appeal Process Appeal Process (check one): ☐ Local Appeal Process (if established). Specify How to Appeal: [insert] ☒ Board of Water & Soil Resources (see instructions below) If there is no established Local Appeal Process indicated above, an appeal of this decision may be made to BWSR per the instructions to the right. Mail or email written request to appeal sent to BWSR within 30 days of date this notice was sent. Include copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their representative(s) (if applicable), a statement clarifying intent to appeal, and supporting information as to why the decision is in error. Mail check payable to MN Board of Water & Soil Resources for $500. Send to: Notice of Decision Template provided by MN Board of Water & Soil Resources – 10/13/2025 Note: Decisions are not final until the 30-day appeal window ends. Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 travis.germundson@state.mn.us. DATE 7/24/26 PROJECT NAME Apple Ford White Bear Lake PROJECT NUMBER GAG26002 PROJECT LOCATION Gem Lake, MN PREPARED BY Landform Shoreland Class Preserved (In)Removed (In)Total DBH (In)Allowable Removed (In)Excess Removed (In)Replacement Factor Replacement Quantitiy (In) A 1,265.00 1,781.00 3,046.00 304.60 1,476.40 75%1,107.30 B 667.00 279.00 946.00 94.60 184.40 100%184.40 C 1,369.00 107.00 1,476.00 147.60 (40.60) 125%(50.75) TOTALS 3,301.00 2,167.00 5,468.00 546.80 1,291.70 TOTAL REQUIRED TREES 517 Non-Shoreland Class Preserved (In)Removed (In)Total DBH (In)Allowable Removed (In)Excess Removed (In)Replacement Factor Replacement Quantitiy (In) A 624.00 4,515.00 5,139.00 1,284.75 3,230.25 75%2,422.69 B 222.00 386.00 608.00 152 00 234.00 100%234.00 C 28.00 19.00 47.00 11.75 7.25 125%9.06 TOTALS 874.00 4,920.00 5,794.00 1,448.50 2,656.69 TOTAL REQUIRED TREES 1,063 Tree #Species Height DBH City classification Required replacement inches Survey code Location Preserve 1 Maple 10 B 10 TRMP 10IN Shoreland Remove 2 Maple 22 B 22 TRMP 22IN HALF DEAD Shoreland Remove 3 Maple 18 B 18 TRMP 18IN Shoreland Remove 4 Maple 26 B 26 TRMP 26IN Shoreland Remove 5 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 6 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 7 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 8 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 9 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 10 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 11 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 12 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 13 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 14 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 15 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 16 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 17 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 18 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 19 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 20 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 21 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 22 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 23 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 24 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 25 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 26 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 27 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 28 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 29 Red Pine 40 ft 12 A 9 TRPR 40FT Shoreland Remove 30 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 31 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 32 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 33 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 34 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 35 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 36 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 37 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 38 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 39 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 40 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 41 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 42 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 43 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 44 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 45 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT 2 STEM Shoreland Remove 46 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 47 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 48 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 49 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 50 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 51 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 52 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 53 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 54 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT 2 STEM Shoreland Remove 55 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 56 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 57 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 58 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 59 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 60 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 61 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 62 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 63 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 64 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 65 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 66 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 67 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 68 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 69 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 70 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 71 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 72 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 73 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 74 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 75 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 76 Red Pine 70 ft 8 A 6 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 77 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 78 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 78 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Shoreland Remove 79 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 79 Siberian Elm 9 B 9 TREM 9IN Shoreland Remove 80 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 80 Siberian Elm 28 B 28 TREM 28IN Shoreland Remove 81 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 81 Boxelder 8 A 6 TRBO 8IN 2 STEM Shoreland Remove 82 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 82 Silver Maple 24 B 24 TRSM 24IN Shoreland Remove 83 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 83 Siberian Elm 8 B 8 TREM 8IN Shoreland Remove 84 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove Apple Autos Tree Iventory Summary Table Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.1 Tree #Species Height DBH City classification Required replacement inches Survey code Location Preserve 84 Poplar 10 A 7.5 TRPO 10IN Shoreland Remove 85 Oak 22 C 27 5 TROA 22IN Shoreland Remove 86 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 86 Siberian Elm 20 B 20 TREM 20IN Shoreland Remove 87 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 87 Siberian Elm 12 B 12 TREM 12IN Shoreland Remove 88 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 88 Boxelder 10 A 7.5 TRBO 10IN Shoreland Remove 89 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 89 Poplar 10 A 7.5 TRPO 10IN Shoreland Remove 90 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 90 Poplar 10 A 7.5 TRPO 10IN Shoreland Remove 91 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 91 Poplar 8 A 6 TRPO 8IN Shoreland Remove 92 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 92 Boxelder 10 A 7.5 TRBO 10IN Shoreland Remove 93 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 93 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Remove 94 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 94 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Remove 95 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 95 Cedar 25 ft 6 A 4.5 TRCR 25FT Shoreland Remove 96 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 96 Red Pine 40 ft 12 A 9 TRPR 40FT Shoreland Remove 97 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 97 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPR 60FT Shoreland Remove 98 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 98 Cedar 15 ft 5 A 3.75 TRCR 15FT Shoreland Remove 99 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 99 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPR 60FT Shoreland Remove 100 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 100 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPR 60FT Shoreland Remove 101 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 101 Siberian Elm 24 B 24 TREM 24IN 2 STEM Shoreland Remove 102 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Remove 102 Boxelder 14 A 10 5 TRBO 14IN Shoreland Remove 103 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 103 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Remove 104 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 104 Silver Maple 16 B 16 TRSM 16IN Shoreland Remove 105 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 105 Silver Maple 16 B 16 TRSM 16IN Shoreland Remove 106 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 106 Boxelder 10 A 7.5 TRBO 10IN Shoreland Remove 107 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 107 Red Pine 40 ft 11 A 8.25 TRPR 40FT Shoreland Remove 108 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 108 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPR 60FT Shoreland Remove 109 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 109 Cedar 20 ft 8 A 6 TRCR 20FT Shoreland Remove 110 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 110 Cedar 20 ft 8 A 6 TRCR 20FT Shoreland Remove 111 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 111 Boxelder 9 A 6.75 TRBO 9IN HALFDEAD Shoreland Remove 112 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 112 Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPN 60FT Shoreland Remove 113 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 113 Cedar 20 ft 8 A 6 TRCR 20FT Shoreland Remove 114 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 114 Cedar 25 ft 8 A 6 TRCR 25FT Shoreland Remove 115 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 115 Cedar 25 ft 8 A 6 TRCR 25FT Shoreland Remove 116 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 116 Cedar 20 ft 8 A 6 TRCR 20FT Shoreland Remove 117 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 117 Siberian Elm 15 A 11.25 TREM 15IN Shoreland Remove 118 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 118 Siberian Elm 36 A 27 TREM 36IN 5 STEM Shoreland Remove 119 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 119 Oak 10 C 12 5 TROA 10IN Shoreland Remove 120 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 120 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Remove 121 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 121 Oak 15 C 18.75 TROA 15IN Shoreland Remove 122 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 122 Oak 18 C 22 5 TROA 18IN Shoreland Remove 123 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 123 Silver Maple 20 B 20 TRSM 20IN Shoreland Remove 124 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 125 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 126 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 127 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 128 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 129 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 130 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 131 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 132 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 133 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 134 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 135 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 136 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 137 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 138 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 139 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 140 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 141 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 142 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 143 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 144 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 145 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 146 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 147 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 148 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 149 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 150 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 151 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 152 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 153 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 154 Boxelder 8 A 6 TRBO 8IN Non-Shoreland Remove 155 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 156 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 157 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 158 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 159 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 160 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 161 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 162 Red Pine 25 ft 9 A 6.75 TRPR 25FT HALF DEAD Non-Shoreland Remove 163 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 164 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 165 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 166 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 167 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 168 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 169 Red Oak 10 C 12 5 TRRO 10IN Non-Shoreland Remove 170 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 171 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 172 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 173 Red Oak 9 C 11.25 TRRO 9IN Non-Shoreland Remove 174 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove Apple Auto Tree Inventory GAG26002 2 Tree #Species Height DBH City classification Required replacement inches Survey code Location Preserve 175 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 176 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 177 Red Pine 15 ft 5 A 3.75 TRPR 15FT Non-Shoreland Remove 178 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 179 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 180 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 181 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 182 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 183 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 184 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 185 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 186 Red Pine 15 ft 5 A 3.75 TRPR 15FT Non-Shoreland Remove 187 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 188 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 189 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 190 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 191 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 192 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 193 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 194 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 195 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 196 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 197 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 198 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 199 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 200 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 201 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 202 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 203 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 204 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 205 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 206 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 207 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 208 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 209 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70 Non-Shoreland Remove 210 Siberian Elm 12 B 12 TREM 12IN Non-Shoreland Remove 211 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 212 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 213 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 214 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 215 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 216 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 217 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 218 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 219 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 220 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 221 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 222 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 223 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 224 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 225 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 40FT Non-Shoreland Remove 226 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 227 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 228 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 229 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 230 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 231 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 40FT Non-Shoreland Remove 232 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 20FT Non-Shoreland Remove 233 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 60FT Non-Shoreland Remove 234 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 235 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 236 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 237 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 50FT Non-Shoreland Remove 238 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 239 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 240 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 241 Boxelder 14 A 10 5 TRBO 14IN 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Remove 242 Poplar 22 A 16 5 TRPO 22IN Non-Shoreland Remove 243 Siberian Elm 18 B 18 TREM 18IN 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Remove 244 Siberian Elm 13 B 13 TREM 13IN 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Remove 245 Siberian Elm 12 B 12 TREM 12IN Non-Shoreland Remove 246 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 247 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 248 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 249 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 250 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 251 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 252 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 30FT Non-Shoreland Remove 253 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 254 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 255 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 256 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 257 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 258 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 259 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 260 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 261 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 262 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 263 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 264 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 265 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Remove 266 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 267 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 268 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 269 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPR 60FT 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Remove 270 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPR 60FT Non-Shoreland Remove 271 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPR 60FT Non-Shoreland Remove 272 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 273 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 274 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 275 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 276 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 277 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 278 Siberian Elm 12 B 12 TREM 12IN Non-Shoreland Remove 279 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 280 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 281 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 282 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 283 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 284 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 285 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 286 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 287 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 288 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 289 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 290 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 291 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 292 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 293 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 294 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 295 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 296 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 297 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 298 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 299 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 300 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 301 River Birch 12 B 12 TRBI 12IN 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Remove 302 Poplar 14 A 10 5 TRPO 14IN Non-Shoreland Remove 303 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 304 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 305 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 306 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 307 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 308 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 309 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 310 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 311 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 312 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove Apple Auto Tree Inventory GAG26002 3 Tree #Species Height DBH City classification Required replacement inches Survey code Location Preserve 313 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 314 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 315 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 316 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 317 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 318 Boxelder 24 A 18 TRBO 24IN Non-Shoreland Remove 319 Boxelder 24 A 18 TRBO 24IN Non-Shoreland Remove 320 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 321 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 322 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 323 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 324 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 325 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 326 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 327 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 328 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 329 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 330 Red Pine 50 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 50FT Non-Shoreland Remove 331 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 332 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 333 Red Pine 50 ft 12 A 9 TRPR 50FT Non-Shoreland Remove 334 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 335 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 336 Red Pine 50 ft 12 A 9 TRPR 50FT Non-Shoreland Remove 337 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 338 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 339 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 340 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 341 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 342 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 343 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10.5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 344 Siberian Elm 14 B 14 TREM 14IN Non-Shoreland Remove 345 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 346 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 347 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 348 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 349 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 350 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 351 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 352 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 353 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 354 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 355 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 356 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 357 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 358 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 359 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 360 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 361 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 362 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 363 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 364 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 365 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 366 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 367 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 368 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 369 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 370 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Remove 371 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 372 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 373 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 374 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 375 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 376 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 377 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 378 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 379 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRSP 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 380 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 381 Red Pine 50 ft 12 A 9 TRPR 50FT Non-Shoreland Remove 382 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 383 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 384 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 385 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 386 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 387 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 388 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 389 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 390 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 391 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 392 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 393 Red Pine 30 ft 10 A 7.5 TRPR 30FT Non-Shoreland Remove 394 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 395 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 396 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 397 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 398 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 399 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 400 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 401 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 402 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 403 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 404 Red Pine 40 ft 12 A 9 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Remove 405 Spruce 50 ft 12 A 9 TRSP 50FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 406 Boxelder 8 A 6 TRBO 8IN Non-Shoreland Remove 407 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Preserve 408 Siberian Elm 8 B 8 TREM 8IN Non-Shoreland Remove 409 Siberian Elm 12 B 12 TREM 12IN Non-Shoreland Remove 410 Siberian Elm 12 B 12 TREM 12IN Non-Shoreland Remove 411 Siberian Elm 14 B 14 TREM 14IN Non-Shoreland Remove 412 Siberian Elm 11 B 11 TREM 11IN Non-Shoreland Remove 413 Siberian Elm 14 B 14 TREM 14IN Non-Shoreland Remove 414 Siberian Elm 10 B 10 TREM 10IN Non-Shoreland Remove 415 Siberian Elm 11 B 11 TREM 11IN Non-Shoreland Remove 416 Siberian Elm 8 B 8 TREM 8IN Non-Shoreland Remove 417 Siberian Elm 8 B 8 TREM 8IN Non-Shoreland Remove 418 Siberian Elm 8 B 8 TREM 8IN Non-Shoreland Remove 419 Siberian Elm 14 B 14 TREM 14IN Non-Shoreland Remove 420 Siberian Elm 14 B 14 TREM 14IN Non-Shoreland Remove 421 Siberian Elm 16 B 16 TREM 16IN Non-Shoreland Remove 422 Siberian Elm 8 B 8 TREM 8IN Non-Shoreland Remove 423 Siberian Elm 16 B 16 TREM 16IN Non-Shoreland Remove 424 Siberian Elm 14 B 14 TREM 14IN Non-Shoreland Remove 425 Siberian Elm 12 B 12 TREM 12IN Non-Shoreland Remove 426 Siberian Elm 14 B 14 TREM 14IN Non-Shoreland Remove 427 Siberian Elm 24 B 24 TREM 24IN Non-Shoreland Remove 428 Siberian Elm 8 B 8 TREM 8IN Non-Shoreland Remove 433 Black Cherry 12 B 12 TRBC 12IN Shoreland Remove 434 Boxelder 24 A18 TRBO 24IN Shoreland Preserve 435 Boxelder 12 A9 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Remove 447 Boxelder 12 A9 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Preserve 448 Red Oak 12 C 15 TRRO 12IN Shoreland Preserve 449 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 450 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 451 Oak 24 C 30 TROA 24IN Shoreland Preserve 452 Boxelder 10 A7.5 TRBO 10IN Shoreland Preserve 453 Oak 24 C 30 TROA 24IN HALF DEAD Shoreland Preserve 454 Oak 9 C 11.25 TROA 9IN Shoreland Preserve 455 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 456 Oak 24 C 30 TROA 24IN Shoreland Preserve 457 Oak 16 C 20 TROA 16IN Shoreland Preserve 458 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 459 Oak 33 C 41.25 TROA 33IN Shoreland Preserve 460 Oak 33 C 41.25 TROA 33IN Shoreland Preserve 461 Boxelder 14 C 17 5 TRBO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 462 Oak 47 C 58.75 TROA 47IN Shoreland Preserve 463 Oak 18 C 22 5 TROA 18IN Shoreland Preserve 464 Oak 9 C 11.25 TROA 9IN Shoreland Preserve 465 Poplar 8 A6 TRPO 8IN Shoreland Preserve 466 Poplar 8 A6 TRPO 8IN Shoreland Preserve 467 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 468 Oak 16 C 20 TROA 16IN Shoreland Preserve 469 Oak 24 C 30 TROA 24IN Shoreland Preserve 470 Oak 20 C 25 TROA 20IN Shoreland Preserve 471 Boxelder 10 A7.5TRBO 10IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 472 Poplar 14 A105 TRPO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 473 Poplar 14 A105 TRPO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 474 Poplar 14 A105 TRPO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 475 Poplar 12 A9 TRPO 12IN Shoreland Preserve 476 Poplar 14 A105TRPO 14IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 477 Poplar 15 A 11.25 TRPO 15IN Shoreland Preserve Apple Auto Tree Inventory GAG26002 4 Tree #Species Height DBH City classification Required replacement inches Survey code Location Preserve 478 Poplar 10 A7.5 TRPO 10IN Shoreland Preserve 479 Poplar 14 A105 TRPO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 480 Siberian Elm 14 A105 TREM 14IN Shoreland Preserve 481 Maple 14 B 14 TRMP 14IN Shoreland Preserve 482 Oak 15 C 18.75 TROA 15IN Shoreland Preserve 483 Oak 13 C 16.25 TROA 13IN Shoreland Preserve 484 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 485 Oak 15 C 18.75 TROA 15IN Shoreland Preserve 486 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 487 Poplar 36 A27 TRPO 36IN Shoreland Preserve 488 Oak 22 C 27 5 TROA 22IN Shoreland Preserve 489 Siberian Elm 10 A7.5 TREM 10IN Shoreland Preserve 490 Cottonwood 42 A315 TRCW 42IN Shoreland Preserve 491 Cottonwood 28 A21 TRCW 28IN Shoreland Preserve 492 Cottonwood 28 A21 TRCW 28IN Shoreland Preserve 493 Cottonwood 28 A21 TRCW 28IN Shoreland Preserve 494 Cottonwood 15 A 11.25 TRCW 15IN HALF DEAD Shoreland Preserve 495 Poplar 14 A105 TRPO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 496 Poplar 24 A18 TRPO 24IN Shoreland Preserve 497 Poplar 22 A165 TRPO 22IN Shoreland Preserve 498 Poplar 16 A12 TRPO 16IN Shoreland Preserve 499 Poplar 36 A27 TRPO 36IN Shoreland Preserve 500 Poplar 33 A 24.75 TRPO 33IN Shoreland Preserve 501 Cottonwood 30 A225 TRCW 30IN Shoreland Preserve 502 Boxelder 12 A9 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Preserve 503 Boxelder 9 A6.75 TRBO 9IN Shoreland Preserve 504 Siberian Elm 8 A6 TREM 8IN Shoreland Preserve 530 Cedar 20 8 A6TRCR 20FT 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 531 Boxelder 8 A6TRBO 8IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 532 Cedar 15 7 A5.25TRCR 15FT 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 533 Boxelder 8 A6 TRBO 8IN Shoreland Preserve 534 Cedar 20 8 A6 TRCR 20FT Shoreland Preserve 535 Boxelder 9 A6.75 TRBO 9IN Shoreland Preserve 536 Siberian Elm 8 A6 TREM 8IN Shoreland Preserve 537 Siberian Elm 14 A105 TREM 14IN Shoreland Preserve 538 Cedar 18 10 A7.5 TRCR 18FT Shoreland Remove 539 Red Pine 25 10 A7.5 TRPR 25FT Shoreland Remove 540 Siberian Elm 12 A9 TREM 12IN Shoreland Preserve 541 Cedar 30 9 A6.75 TRCR 30FT Shoreland Remove 542 Cedar 25 10 A7.5 TRCR 25FT Shoreland Preserve 543 Siberian Elm 14 A105 TREM 14IN Shoreland Preserve 544 Siberian Elm 15 A 11.25 TREM 15IN Shoreland Preserve 545 Boxelder 12 A12 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Preserve 546 Boxelder 8 A8 TRBO 8IN Shoreland Remove 547 Boxelder 15 A 11.25 TRBO 15IN Shoreland Remove 548 Boxelder 13 A13TRBO 13IN 3 STEM Shoreland Remove 549 Siberian Elm 8 A8 TREM 8IN Shoreland Remove 550 Boxelder 9 A6.75 TRBO 9IN Shoreland Remove 551 Cottonwood 26 A26 TRCW 26IN Shoreland Preserve 552 Boxelder 14 B 14 TRBO 14IN Shoreland Remove 553 Oak 28 C 35 TROA 28IN Shoreland Remove 554 Oak 36 C 45 TROA 36IN Shoreland Preserve 555 Red Oak 42 C 52 5 TRRO 42IN Shoreland Preserve 556 Cottonwood 28 A21 TRCW 28IN Shoreland Preserve 557 Siberian Elm 15 A 11.25 TREM 15IN Shoreland Preserve 558 Siberian Elm 8 A6 TREM 8IN Shoreland Preserve 559 Siberian Elm 8 A6 TREM 8IN Shoreland Preserve 560 Siberian Elm 9 A6.75 TREM 9IN Shoreland Preserve 561 Cottonwood 22 A165 TRCW 22IN Shoreland Preserve 562 Siberian Elm 8 A6 TREM 8IN Shoreland Remove 563 Boxelder 9 A6.75 TRBO 9IN Shoreland Preserve 567 Boxelder 10 A7.5 TRBO 10IN Shoreland Remove 568 Boxelder 8 A6 TRBO 8IN Shoreland Remove 569 Boxelder 9 A6.75 TRBO 9IN Shoreland Remove 570 Boxelder 11 A8.25 TRBO 11IN Shoreland Remove 571 Boxelder 13 A9.75 TRBO 13IN Shoreland Remove 608 Boxelder 28 A 21 TRBO 28IN Shoreland Preserve 690 Siberian Elm 18 A 13 5 TREM 18IN Shoreland Remove 691 Siberian Elm 18 A 13 5 TREM 18IN Shoreland Remove 693 Siberian Elm 15 A 11.25 TREM 15IN Shoreland Remove 694 Boxelder 20 A 15 TRBO 20IN Shoreland Remove 695 Siberian Elm 15 A 11.25 TREM 15IN Shoreland Remove 696 Siberian Elm 15 A 11.25 TREM 15IN Shoreland Remove 697 Boxelder 20 A 15 TRBO 20IN Shoreland Remove 698 Boxelder 18 A 13 5 TRBO 18IN Shoreland Remove 699 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Remove 700 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN 3 STEM Shoreland Remove 701 Boxelder 15 A 11.25 TRBO 15IN Shoreland Remove 702 Boxelder 16 A 12 TRBO 16IN Shoreland Remove 703 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Shoreland Remove 704 Siberian Elm 15 A 11.25 TREM 15IN Shoreland Remove 705 Siberian Elm 36 A 27 TREM 36IN Shoreland Remove 706 Boxelder 10 A 7.5 TRBO 10IN Shoreland Remove 709 Locust 15 B 15 TRLT 15IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 710 Locust 13 B 13 TRLT 13IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 711 Locust 13 B 13 TRLT 13IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 712 Locust 16 B 16 TRLT 16IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 713 Locust 16 B 16 TRLT 16IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 714 Locust 15 B 15 TRLT 15IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 715 Locust 15 B 15 TRLT 15IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 716 Locust 15 B 15 TRLT 15IN Non-Shoreland Remove 717 Spruce 25 ft 10 A 7.5 TRSP 25FT Non-Shoreland Remove 718 Spruce 30 ft 11 A 8.25 TRSP 30FT Non-Shoreland Remove 719 Cottonwood 20 ft 9 A 6.75 TRCW 20FT Non-Shoreland Remove 720 Siberian Elm 20 in 9 B 9 TREM 20IN Non-Shoreland Remove 721 Red Pine 50 ft 12 A 9 TRPR 50FT Non-Shoreland Remove 722 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRPR 60FT Non-Shoreland Remove 723 Siberian Elm 13 B 13 TREM 13IN Non-Shoreland Remove 724 Poplar 9 A 6.75 TRPO 9IN Non-Shoreland Remove 725 Siberian Elm 13 A 9.75 TREM 13IN Non-Shoreland Remove 726 Siberian Elm 8 A 6 TREM 8IN HALF DEAD Non-Shoreland Remove 734 Red Pine 25 FT 6 A 4.5 TRPR 25FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 735 Red Pine 20 FT 14 A 10 5 TRPR 20FT 3 STEM Non-Shoreland Preserve 736 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 737 Red Pine 22 ft 6 A 4.5 TRPR 22FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 738 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 739 Boxelder 24 A 18 TRBO 24IN 3 STEM Non-Shoreland Preserve 740 Boxelder 14 A 10 5 TRBO 14IN 3 STEM Non-Shoreland Preserve 741 Boxelder 14 A 10 5 TRBO 14IN 3 STEM Non-Shoreland Preserve 742 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN 5 STEM Non-Shoreland Preserve 743 Boxelder 8 A 6 TRBO 8IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 744 Spruce 50 12 A 9 TRSP 50FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 745 Boxelder 9 A 6.75 TRBO 9IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 746 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 747 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 748 Boxelder 8 A 6 TRBO 8IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 749 Boxelder 10 A 7.5 TRBO 10IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 750 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 751 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 752 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 753 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 754 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 755 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 756 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 757 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 758 Boxelder 13 A 9.75 TRBO 13IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 759 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRSP 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 760 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 761 Spruce 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRSP 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 762 Spruce 65 ft 14 A 10 5 TRSP 65FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 763 Red Pine 70 ft 14 A 10 5 TRPR 70FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 764 Red Pine 60 ft 13 A 9.75 TRSP 60FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 765 Spruce 75 ft 15 A 11.25 TRSP 75FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 766 Spruce 80 ft 16 A 12 TRSP 80FT Non-Shoreland Preserve 767 Boxelder 24 A 18 TRBO 24IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 768 Siberian Elm 18 A 13 5 TREM 18IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 769 Oak 13 C 16.25 TROA 13IN Shoreland Preserve 770 Oak 36 C 45 TROA 36IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 772 Oak 20 C 25 TROA 20IN Shoreland Preserve 773 Oak 16 C 20 TROA 16IN Shoreland Preserve 774 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 775 Oak 24 C 30 TROA 24IN Shoreland Preserve Apple Auto Tree Inventory GAG26002 5 Tree #Species Height DBH City classification Required replacement inches Survey code Location Preserve 776 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 777 Black Cherry 20 B 20 TRBC 20IN Shoreland Preserve 778 Oak 20 C 25 TROA 20IN Shoreland Preserve 779 Oak 28 C 35 TROA 28IN Shoreland Preserve 780 Oak 24 C 30 TROA 24IN Shoreland Preserve 781 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 782 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 783 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 784 Cottonwood 14 A 10 5 TRCW 14IN Shoreland Preserve 785 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 786 Oak 15 C 18.75 TROA 15IN Shoreland Preserve 787 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 788 Oak 10 C 12 5 TROA 10IN Shoreland Preserve 789 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 790 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 791 Oak 50 C 62 5 TROA 50IN Shoreland Preserve 792 Boxelder 14 A 10 5 TRBO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 793 Oak 10 C 12 5 TROA 10IN Shoreland Preserve 794 Oak 18 C 22 5 TROA 18IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 795 Oak 20 C 25 TROA 20IN Shoreland Preserve 796 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 797 Oak 16 C 20 TROA 16IN Shoreland Preserve 798 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 799 Oak 8 C 10 TROA 8IN Shoreland Preserve 800 Oak 26 C 32 5 TROA 26IN Shoreland Preserve 801 Oak 24 C 30 TROA 24IN Shoreland Preserve 802 Oak 13 C 16.25 TROA 13IN Shoreland Preserve 803 Oak 28 C 35 TROA 28IN Shoreland Preserve 804 Oak 13 C 16.25 TROA 13IN Shoreland Preserve 805 Oak 13 C 16.25 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 806 Oak 30 C 37 5 TROA 30IN HALF DEAD Shoreland Preserve 807 Black Cherry 13 B 13 TRBC 13IN Shoreland Preserve 808 Poplar 13 A 9.75 TRPO 10IN Shoreland Preserve 809 Poplar 10 A 7.5 TRPO 15IN Shoreland Preserve 810 Poplar 18 A 13 5 TRPO 18IN Shoreland Preserve 811 Boxelder 14 A 10 5 TRBO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 812 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN Shoreland Preserve 813 Oak 12 C 15 TROA 12IN Shoreland Preserve 814 Oak 15 C 18.75 TROA 15IN Shoreland Preserve 815 Oak 18 C 22 5 TROA 18IN Shoreland Preserve 816 Oak 10 C 12 5 TROA 10IN Shoreland Preserve 817 Boxelder 12 A 9 TRBO 12IN 3 STEM Shoreland Preserve 818 Oak 13 C 16.25 TROA 13IN Shoreland Preserve 819 Cottonwood 10 A 7.5 TRCW 10IN Shoreland Preserve 820 Maple 12 B 12 TRMP 12IN Shoreland Preserve 821 Maple 14 B 14 TRMP 14IN Shoreland Preserve 822 Maple 15 B 15 TRMP 15IN Shoreland Preserve 823 Maple 12 B 12 TRMP 12IN Shoreland Preserve 824 Black Cherry 15 B 15 TRBC 15IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 825 Maple 11 B 11 TRMP 11IN Shoreland Preserve 826 Maple 12 B 12 TRMP 12IN Shoreland Preserve 827 Maple 16 B 16 TRMP 16IN Shoreland Preserve 828 Maple 12 B 12 TRMP 12IN Shoreland Preserve 829 Maple 13 B 13 TRMP 13IN Shoreland Preserve 830 Maple 14 B 14 TRMP 14IN Shoreland Preserve 831 Maple 15 B 15 TRMP 15IN Shoreland Preserve 832 Maple 13 B 13 TRMP 13IN Shoreland Preserve 833 Maple 15 B 15 TRMP 15IN Shoreland Preserve 834 Oak 18 C 22 5 TROA 18IN Shoreland Preserve 835 Oak 14 C 17 5 TROA 14IN HALF DEAD Shoreland Preserve 836 Maple 17 B 17 TRMP 17IN Shoreland Preserve 837 Maple 12 B 12 TRMP 12IN Shoreland Preserve 839 Maple 12 B 12 TRMP 12IN Shoreland Preserve 840 Maple 12 B 12 TRMP 12IN Shoreland Preserve 841 Maple 14 B 14 TRMP 14IN Shoreland Preserve 842 Maple 13 B 13 TRMP 13IN Shoreland Preserve 843 Maple 14 B 14 TRMP 14IN Shoreland Preserve 844 Maple 16 B 16 TRMP 16IN HALF DEAD Shoreland Preserve 845 Maple 18 B 18 TRMP 18IN Shoreland Preserve 846 Maple 18 B 18 TRMP 18IN Shoreland Preserve 847 Maple 15 B 15 TRMP 15IN Shoreland Preserve 848 Maple 14 B 14 TRMP 14IN Shoreland Preserve 849 Cottonwood 50 A 37 5 TRCW 50IN 3 STEM Shoreland Preserve 850 Maple 26 B 26 TRMP 26IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 851 Maple 18 B 18 TRMP 18IN Shoreland Preserve 852 Oak 36 C 45 TROA 36IN Shoreland Preserve 853 Maple 16 B 16 TRMP 16IN Shoreland Preserve 854 Maple 40 B 40 TRMP 40IN Shoreland Preserve 855 Crabapple 11 B 11 TRCA 11IN Shoreland Preserve 856 Maple 8 B 8 TRMP 8IN Shoreland Preserve 857 Maple 12 B 12 TRMP 12IN Shoreland Preserve 858 Maple 16 B 16 TRMP 16IN Shoreland Preserve 859 Maple 24 B 24 TRMP 24IN Shoreland Preserve 860 Cottonwood 50 A 37 5 TRCW 50IN Shoreland Preserve 861 Cottonwood 48 A 36 TRCW 48IN Shoreland Preserve 862 Maple 22 B 22 TRMP 22IN Shoreland Preserve 863 Boxelder 10 A 7.5 TRBO 10IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 864 Maple 16 A 12 TRMP 16IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 865 Boxelder 16 A 12 TRBO 16IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 866 Silver Maple 42 B 42 TRSM 2 STEM 42IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 867 Boxelder 32 B 32 TRBO 32IN 3 STEM Non-Shoreland Preserve 868 Maple 20 A 15 TRMP 20IN HALF DEAD Non-Shoreland Preserve 869 Boxelder 8 B 8 TRBO 8IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 871 Boxelder 13 A 9.75 TRBO 13IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 872 Maple 28 C 35 TRMP 28IN 2 STEM Non-Shoreland Preserve 873 Oak 12 B 12 TROA 12IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 874 Maple 25 B 25 TRMP 25IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 875 Oak 12 A 9 TROA 12IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 876 Oak 36 A 27 TROA 36IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 877 Boxelder 11 A 8.25 TRBO 11IN Non-Shoreland Preserve 878 Boxelder 14 A 10 5 TRBO 14IN Shoreland Preserve 879 Boxelder 20 A 15 TRBO 20IN STEM Shoreland Preserve 880 Maple 24 B 24 TRMP 24IN Shoreland Preserve 881 Oak 28 C 35 TROA 28IN Shoreland Preserve 882 Poplar 10 A 7.5 TRPO 10IN Shoreland Preserve 883 Poplar 11 A 8.25 TRPO 11IN Shoreland Preserve 884 Poplar 12 A 9 TRPO 12IN Shoreland Preserve 885 Poplar 11 A 8.25 TRPO 11IN Shoreland Preserve 886 Poplar 8A 6 TRPO 8IN Shoreland Preserve 887 Boxelder 32 A 24 TRBO 32IN 3 STEM Shoreland Preserve 888 Black Cherry 12 B 12 TRBC IN Shoreland Preserve 889 Maple 15 B 15 TRMP 15IN Shoreland Preserve 890 Plum 12 B 12 TRD PLUM 12IN 2 STEM Shoreland Preserve 891 Oak 16 C 20 TROA 16IN Shoreland Preserve 892 Maple 24 A 18 TRMP 24IN Shoreland Preserve Apple Auto Tree Inventory GAG26002 6 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA. PRELIMINARY 09/14/2026 Steven Sabraski Date License No. 47165 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL BODIES AND REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 1 City of Gem Lake ............................................................................................................................................... 1 MPCA................................................................................................................................................................. 1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND DRAINAGE PATTERNS ...................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ON-SITE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 1 Rate Control ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Abstraction ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 CONTACT INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 APPENDICIES APPENDIX A: EXISTING SOIL SURVEY AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX B: EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP & HYDROCAD MODEL APPENDIX C: PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP & HYDROCAD MODEL APPENDIX D: OTHER PROPOSED HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX E: STORM SEWER DRAINAGE MAP & CALCULATIONS Apple Ford, Gem Lake, MN September 14, 2026 GAG26002 1 INTRODUCTION The proposed redevelopment will consist of a new commercial building containing 121,000 s.f, of vehicle sales, and vehicle service encompassing 33.6 acres located at 1493 COUNTY ROAD E in the City of Gem Lake, Minnesota. There will also be new private concrete walks, a parking lot, driveways, utilities, and underground and above ground stormwater detention systems. JURISDICTIONAL BODIES AND REQUIREMENTS The City of Gem Lake and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have review jurisdiction over storm water runoff from the proposed re/development at this site. City of Gem Lake The city requires that the peak discharge rate from the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events be at or below the existing rates. The site must also abstract 1.1-inch of runoff from the newly added and fully reconstructed impervious surfaces. Water quality requirements must comply with MPCA requirements. Storm sewers must be designed to carry the runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm. MPCA The state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) / State Disposal System Program and the Construction Stormwater General Permit requires retention on site of 1-inch of runoff from all new impervious surfaces where they replace one (1) of more acres of vegetation or pervious surface. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND DRAINAGE PATTERNS The parcel is occupied by a auto dealership building. The topography of the site is primarily gently sloping terrain from with one third sloping south and the rest sloping to the north and east with elevations ranging from 975 to 955. The site is covered by farmyard and commercial buildings and pavement. Soils are SCS Types D per the National Resource Conservation Service maps. Geotechnical borings show mostly clayey sand (SC). Most of the site surface drains North into the wetland, where the remaining portion of the site drains south into storm sewer located in County Road E Refer to Appendix A for additional information. PROPOSED ON-SITE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT The design goal of the proposed drainage plan is to follow the existing drainage patterns to the extent possible and to meet the City of Gem Lake and the MPCA’s stormwater requirements. Apple Ford, Gem Lake, MN September 14, 2026 GAG26002 3 In place of abstracting due to the clay sold prohibiting infiltration, stormwater treatment will be provided through use of wet detention surface basins and underground detention basin with filtration provided by a manufactured treatment device. These basins and treatment devices shall follow design requirements as set forth in the MPCA’s Construction Stormwater Permit and Minnesota Stormwater Manuel. Refer to Appendix D for the design requirements and provided values of all the proposed basins. The underground detention basin will filter the water using a manufactured treatment device. The amount of impervious area draining to the underground detention system is equal to 217,899 s.f. which requires a water treatment volume of 19,973 c.f. (217,899 x 1.1 inches / 12). An outlet control structure with a weir and orifice set at 959.85 controls the water quality volume and provides 22,191 c.f. of treatment which is greater than the required. To minimize erosion and sedimentation, silt fence, inlet protection, street sweeping, and stabilized rock construction entrances will be implemented as part of the temporary erosion and sediment control plan. CONCLUSION Our design meets and exceeds the MPCA’s and the City’s requirements for rate control, volume control, and water quality treatment. CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Landform 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Please direct any questions regarding this stormwater narrative to Steve Sabraski at ssabraski@landform.net or 612-252- 9070. Apple Ford, Gem Lake, MN GAG26002 Appendix A-1 APPENDIX A: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Testing, 245 Roselawn Ave. E., Suite #29, St. Paul, MN 55117 · (651) 756-7384 · stpaul@cvtesting.com _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A IOWA W I S C O N S I N Chris Gulbrandsen, President May 28, 2026 Apple Ford White Bear Lake P.O. Box 240299 Apple Valley, MN 55124 c/o: Dan Burnam Gries Architects 400 2nd Street South Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 Phone: 715-808-1555 Email: dburnam@gries.design Re: Draft Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Apple Ford 1493 County Road E East Gem Lake, Minnesota CVT Project 27718.26.MNT Dear Mr. Burnam, As authorized, we have completed the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed project in Gem Lake, Minnesota. This letter briefly summarizes the findings in the attached report. Summary of Boring Results Five of the borings were drilled in the existing field west of the existing facility and encountered topsoil at the surface. The topsoil was typically followed by dark, relatively inorganic B-Horizon soils to depths of about 4 to 6 ½ feet. The deeper soils were primarily by clayey and/or silty glacial deposits before terminating in rather clean sands. Most of the borings were drilled in paved areas. The paving materials were typically underlain by clayey fill or possible fill to depths ranging from about 6 ½ to 18 feet below the surface. The uppermost materials tended were more readily identifiable as fill and tended to have a mixed appearance and or had underlying dark soils zones which might be fill or might be natural, low organic B-Horizon. The dark B- Horizon type soils were also met just below the paving materials at a few locations and were suspected to be fill materials in those areas, but not conclusively. The fill appeared to be potentially 18 feet deep in two borings. One of those was in an area where a historical photo indicates a pond was present. At the other locations, woody matter was present in the 15 - foot sample which could be a positive indication of fill but might also possibly have been from a deep tree root. Water was noticed at 12 feet in two of the borings taken in the field west of the existing facility, at depths corresponding to about elevations 944 and 947 feet. Those elevations are below the depths explored by Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 Project: 27718.26.MNT Page 2 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A IOWA W I S C O N S I N most of the borings. Based on this and comparative moisture contents expected for the various soil types encountered elsewhere on the site, the static water level at the site is believed to be in the vicinity of 947 or lower across the site. Summary of Analysis and Recommendations Based on the borings, the general conditions at the site appear to consist of topsoil or pavement over moderate to deep amounts of fill or possible fill which are primarily underlain by glacial soils. In the absence of record attesting to proper preparation before placing the fill, confirming the overall suitability of the fill and lack of deleterious materials, and compaction, its behavior is less predictable and construction on such material entails a higher-than-normal risk of foundation settlement. The most common practice to eliminate those concerns is to remove the undocumented fill and replace it with documented “engineered” fill (Total Removal Option). The deeper fill and possible fill typically evidenced N-values of 10 or more, which suggest those fills likely received some degree of compactive effort. Considering this and the lack of observed unsuitable materials within or below the fill, we are of the opinion that the owner can reasonably consider floating the proposed structure on the existing fill. If this approach is used, the report includes recommendations intended to reduce the risk of unusual settlement but will not completely eliminate that risk. If the owner is not willing to accept the risks associated with the partial removal option, total removal or other support options must be pursued. In that event, aggregate piers are suspected to be a more economical option for reducing the risk to typical levels. Remarks CVT appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. If there are any questions about our report, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Hannah Fischer Graduate Engineer Colby T. Verdegan, PE Sr. Geotechnical/Materials Engineer _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 2 A.1. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 A.2. SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 A.3. BORING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 2 A.4. GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 2 B. SUBSURFACE DATA ........................................................................................................................................... 3 B.1. STRATIFICATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 B.2. PENETRATION TEST AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 4 B.3. GROUNDWATER DATA ............................................................................................................................................. 4 C. DESIGN DATA .................................................................................................................................................... 5 D. ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 E. BUILDING GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 6 E.1. EXCAVATION - TOTAL FILL REMOVAL OPTION ............................................................................................................... 6 E.2. PARTIAL FILL REMOVAL OPTION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 6 E.3. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF BEARING SUBGRADE ........................................................................................................... 7 E.4. OVERSIZING ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 E.5. SURFACE COMPACTION FOR PARTIAL REMOVAL OPTION................................................................................................. 7 E.6. FILLING AND COMPACTION ....................................................................................................................................... 7 F. RAMMED AGGREGATE OPTION .......................................................................................................................... 8 F.1. STRIPPING AND EXCAVATION ..................................................................................................................................... 8 F.2. FILLING AND COMPACTION ........................................................................................................................................ 8 F.3. AGGREGATE PIER INSTALLATION AND POST INSTALLATION OBSERVATIONS ......................................................................... 8 G. BUILDING DESIGN .............................................................................................................................................. 8 G.1. FOUNDATION DEPTH ............................................................................................................................................... 8 G.2 BEARING CAPACITY AND SETTLEMENT .......................................................................................................................... 9 G.3. VAPOR BARRIER ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 G.4. SLAB DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 G.5. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ...................................................................................................................................... 9 H. PAVED AREA RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 10 H.1. STRIPPING AND GRADING ...................................................................................................................................... 10 H.2. PAVEMENT DESIGN .............................................................................................................................................. 10 H.3. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................... 10 I. STORMWATER INFILTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 11 J. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 11 J.1. EARTHWORK ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 J.2. SIDESLOPES........................................................................................................................................................... 11 J.3. COLD WEATHER .................................................................................................................................................... 11 J.4. CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND DOCUMENTATION ......................................................................................................... 12 K. LEVEL OF CARE ................................................................................................................................................ 12 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 13 Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 2 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Facility for Apple Ford 1493 County Road E East Gem Lake, Minnesota Project Number: 27718.26.MNT May 28, 2026 A. Introduction The intent of this report is to present our findings to the client in the same logical sequence that led us to arrive at the opinions and recommendations expressed. Since our services often must be completed before the design is finished, assumptions are often needed to prepare a proper scope and to analyze the data. A complete and thorough review of the entire document, including its assumptions and its appendices, should be undertaken immediately upon receipt. A.1. Purpose This geotechnical report was prepared to aid in the design and construction of the proposed facility for Apple Ford in Gem Lake, Minnesota. Our services were authorized by Mr. Dan Burnam from Gries Architects. A.2. Scope To obtain data for analysis, a total of twenty (20) penetration test borings were authorized. Ten (10) building borings were drilled to depths of about 20 feet. The remaining ten (10) borings were drilled to depths of about 15 feet. Our engineering scope consisted of providing this report summarizing our exploration procedures and findings and providing geotechnical recommendations for the proposed facility. A.3. Boring Locations and Elevations The proposed boring locations were suggested for approval by Chosen Valley Testing (CVT) based on a site plan provided by the client. The Boring Location Sketch in the Appendix shows the approximate locations as drilled. The sketch was based on superposing the boring locations and the site plan onto aerial imagery of the site, using Google Earth Software. Ground surface elevations at the borings were estimated to the nearest ½-foot from LiDAR topographic data available by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources using their online software “MnTOPO”. A.4. Geologic Background A geotechnical report is based on subsurface data collected for the specific structure or problem. Available geologic data from the region can help interpretation of the data and is briefly summarized in this section. The site is located within a developed area. Geologic maps indicate the dominant soils in the area are sandy glacial till deposits. Bedrock is commonly more than 150 feet below the surface and consists of Prairie du Chien Group. Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 3 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Aerial photographs from an associated environmental study indicate the site was farmland until at least 1953, with the only developed part of the site being a farmstead situated in the southwest quarter of the existing facility. The photos indicate multiple expansions of building and paved areas on the east half of the presently facility until at least 1972. The area north of the farmstead was no longer planted by that time but had other signs of disturbance, including a small pond near the planned northwest corner of the new building (essentially at planned Boring B-09). By 1991, the area of entire existing facility appears to have been paved and most of the existing buildings appear to have been constructed. We are not aware of any geotechnical records of the development. B. Subsurface Data Procedures: The borings were performed using penetration test procedures (Method of Test D1586 of the American Society for Testing and Materials). This procedure allows for the extraction of intact soil specimens from deep in the ground. With this method, a hollow-stem auger is drilled to the desired sampling depth. A 2- inch OD sampling tube is then screwed onto the end of a sampling rod, inserted through the hole in the auger's tip, and then driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped repeatedly from a height of 30 inches above the sampling rod. The sampler is driven 18 inches into the soil unless the material is too hard. The samples are generally taken at 2½ to 5-foot intervals. The core of soil obtained was classified and logged by the driller on site and a representative portion was then sealed and delivered to the geotechnical engineer for further review. B.1. Stratification Five of the borings were drilled in the existing field west of the existing facility and encountered topsoil at the surface. The topsoil was typically followed by dark, relatively inorganic B-Horizon soils to depths of about 4 to 6 ½ feet. The deeper soils were primarily by clayey and/or silty glacial deposits before terminating in rather clean sands. Most of the borings were drilled in paved areas at the existing facility and initially encountered 2 to 4 inches of asphalt over 3 to 6 inches of aggregate base. The paving materials were typically underlain by clayey fill or possible fill to depths ranging from about 6 ½ to 18 feet below the surface. The uppermost materials tended were more readily identifiable as fill and tended to have a mixed appearance and or had underlying dark soils zones which might be fill or might be natural, low organic B-Horizon. The dark B-Horizon type soils were also met just below the paving materials at a few locations and were suspected to be fill materials in those areas, but not conclusively. The fill appeared to be potentially 18 feet deep in the boring drilled at the northwest building corner (Boring B-09) and the south corner (Boring B-06). As mentioned in Section A.4, the historical photo indicates a pond was present at the location of B-9. Due to poor sample quality, the deepest materials at that location are indicated as being “possible fill.” The B-06 location appears to be just outside of the original farmstead at the site. Determination of the deep soils as possible fill at this location was due to woody matter in the 15-foot sample which could be a positive indication of fill but might also possibly have been from a deep tree root. The boring data has been summarized in the cross-section following this paragraph. Please refer to the individual Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for more detailed information. Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 4 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N B.2. Penetration Test and Laboratory Test Results The number of blows needed for the hammer to advance the penetration test sampler is an indicator of soil characteristics. The results tend to be more meaningful for natural mineral soils than for fill soils. In fill soils, compaction tests are more meaningful. Penetration resistance values ("N" Value) in the fill and possible fill soils ranged from 4 BPF (Blows per Foot) to 50 blows over 1 inch and averaged about 12 BPF. The vast majority of the samples below 5 feet had values of 10 BPF or higher. Values in the natural sands and silty to clayey sands ranged from 6 to 61 BPF, indicating those soils were loose to very dense but mostly medium dense. The natural clay recorded values of 9 to 28 BPF, indicating it was rather stiff to very stiff, but mostly stiff. A key to descriptors used to qualify the relative density of soil (such as soft, stiff, loose, and dense) can be found on the Legend to Soil Description in the Appendix. B.3. Groundwater Data During drilling, the drillers may note the presence of moisture on the sampler, in the cuttings, or in the borehole itself. These findings are reported on the boring logs. Because water levels vary with weather, time of year, and other factors, the presence or lack of water during exploration is subject to interpretation and is not always conclusive. Free water was not observed in most of the borings and most of the samples retrieved were not overly wet. Water was observed at 2 feet during drilling the boring near the southeast corner of the property and is Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 5 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N believed to be associated with near surface drainage. Water was also noticed at 12 feet in two of the borings taken in the field west of the existing facility, at depths corresponding to about elevations 944 and 947 feet. Those elevations are below the depths explored by most of the borings. Based on this and comparative moisture contents expected for the various soil types encountered elsewhere on the site, the static water level at the site is believed to be in the vicinity of 947 or lower across the site. Groundwater levels on site would be expected to fluctuate seasonally, similar to levels in nearby ponds and lakes, along with local weather patterns. C. Design Data Because each structure has a different loading configuration and intensity, different grades, and different structural or performance tolerances, the results of a geotechnical exploration will mean different things for different facilities. If the facility changes, Chosen Valley Testing should be contacted to discuss possible implications of the changes. Without a chance to review such changes, the recommendations of the soils engineer may no longer be valid or appropriate. The proposed facilty is assumed to be a single-story slab on grade structure with high roof areas for tall storage, hoists, etc. Maximum foundation loads are assumed to be on the order of 150 kips or less per column and strip footing loads are assumed to be 6 kips per linear foot or less. The finished floor elevation is assumed to be near an elevation at 971 feet. The paved areas are assumed to carry primarily auto traffic or be for auto parking but are assumed to also have heavier traffic areas. We have also assumed that a storm pond would likely be placed in the field west of the building. D. Analysis Based on the borings, the general conditions at the site appear to consist of topsoil or pavement over moderate to deep amounts of fill or possible fill which are primarily underlain by glacial soils. In the absence of record attesting to proper preparation before placing the fill, confirming the overall suitability of the fill and lack of deleterious materials, and compaction, its behavior is less predictable and construction on such material entails a higher-than-normal risk of foundation settlement. The most common practice to eliminate those concerns is to remove the undocumented fill and replace it with documented “engineered” fill (Total Removal Option). As noted earlier, the deeper fill and possible fill typically evidenced N-values of 10 or more, which suggest those fills likely received some degree of compactive effort. Considering this and the lack of observed unsuitable materials within or below the fill, we are of the opinion that the owner can reasonably consider floating the proposed structure on the existing fill. If this approach is used, we would strongly recommend at least partially removing the fill from below the footings and slabs and replacing that material with engineered fill. Faced with this circumstance on similar sites, a typical approach would consist of: • removing the existing fill to a depth of 4 feet below footings and slabs, • screening out any obvious unsuitable materials from the excavated fill (large pieces of debris, any compressible or highly organic materials, other extremely weak or extremely dissimilar soils) • then replacing the improved material in a compacted fashion below the foundations and slabs. Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 6 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Implementation of the partial corrections option described is intended to reduce the risk of unusual settlement but will not completely eliminate that risk. If the owner is not willing to accept the risks associated with the partial removal option, the total removal or other support options must be pursued. In that event, aggregate piers are suspected to be a more economical option for reducing the risk to typical levels. Sections E. of this report provides general recommendations applicable to the total and particular removal options. Section F. provides general recommendation for the aggregate pier option. Specific recommendations are not provided for the aggregate pier option as these are proprietary installations and must be designed by the design -build contractor and coordinated with the requirements of the structural engineer. The remainder of this report provides further details of our recommendations. E. Building Grading Recommendations E.1. Excavation - Total Fill Removal Option With this approach, we recommend removing all existing pavements, topsoil and fill from below the building, along with any existing pavements, utilities, foundations, or otherwise unsuitable materials that may be encountered during construction. For planning purposes, we recommend assuming that the possible fill must also be removed. The apparent depths of these materials at the locations explored in the building area are summarized in table following this paragraph. Boring ID Approx. Ground Surface Elev. (feet) Apparent Depth of Unsuitable Soils (feet) Approx. Elevation at Bottom of Unsuitable Soils (feet) B-01 965 6 ½ 958 ½ B-02 968 6 ½ 961 ½ B-03 969 6 ½ 962 ½ B-04 968 11 ½ 956 ½ B-05 974 14 960 B-06 974 18 956 B-07 972 6 ½ 965 ½ B-08 963 4 959 B-09 967 18 949 B-20 969 14 955 E.2. Partial Fill Removal Option Recommendations With this approach, we recommend removing the existing fill to a depth of at least 4 feet below all foundations and the proposed slab. Large pieces of concrete, debris, organics or other unsuitable materials in the excavated soils should be separated out from any fill intended to be placed back into the excavation. Any high permeability fill excavated during this process (such as the clean poorly graded sands and gravels) should be separated from the lower permeability soils and discarded or only used as interior foundation Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 7 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N wall backfill. The fill should be closely reviewed and probed at that time for signs of unsuitable materials that would warrant additional correction. E.3. Geotechnical Review of Bearing Subgrade It is recommended that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be retained to evaluate the soils when they are better exposed during construction. Subject to the results of those evaluations, additional soil corrections or revised recommendations may be warranted. E.4. Oversizing Soil correction excavations should be oversized at least 1-foot beyond the edge of foundations for each foot of fill needed below footing grade. This oversizing can be reduced by up to 50% if rather precise staking is present during grading, although some additional oversizing provides the owner some protection against stakes getting moved or knocked down or slight repositioning of the building after soil corrections are performed. E.5. Surface Compaction for Partial Removal Option With particular regard to the partial removal options, the soils at the base of the excavation should be surface compacted by a large, self-propelled vibratory compactor before placing subsequent fill. This is intended to deepen the zone of overall soil improvement and seal off the surface -- limiting potential infiltration of water into untreated fill soils at depth. E.6. Filling and Compaction Based on the assumed grades, fill will likely be needed to attain final grades for the proposed building. Presuming that is the case, for ease in compaction, we would suggest importing clean sand or gravel having less than 12% particles passing a number 200 sieve for use in the building area. These are also the preferred subgrade materials for slab subgrades having concentrations of utilities, drains, etc. For slabs receiving covering or coatings that are less permeable than concrete, we recommend placing at least 4 to 6 inches of cleaner free draining sand or gravel having less than 5% particles passing a #200 sieve directly below slabs. Both of these materials would also have to be imported. Because of its low permeability, the existing clayey fill and possible fill are the preferred bulk fill materials below foundations with the partial removal option, provided it is screened of organic materials, debris laden or otherwise unsuitable material. This would have to be reviewed in greater detail during construction. If these materials are used, we suggest using clean sand in the upper 2 feet of the interior slab areas, as an aid to utilities installations and slab subgrade preparation. The dirty existing fill is preferred as exterior backfilling against foundation walls. All materials below the building, in the oversized areas, and used as backfill for walls should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of its maximum standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). The fill should be placed in lifts adjusted to the compactor being used and the material being compacted. We recommend limiting lifts to no more than 1-foot. This assumes large, self-propelled or tow-behind compactors are used. Thinner lifts should be used for lighter compaction equipment. Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 8 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Meaningful compaction testing may not be feasible on the mixed existing fill materials, because of difficulty in obtaining representative Proctor samples of variable materials. In that event “ordinary compaction” would likely be necessary. This would consist of having geotechnical personnel document proper grading procedures (proper material use and moisture conditioning as well as fill lift thickness and compactive effort relative to the material and compaction equipment). F. Rammed Aggregate Option F.1. Stripping and Excavation With this approach, we recommend completely removing all topsoil, foundations, or any other unsuitable materials that may be discovered during construction that cannot be improved by the rammed aggregate piers. At the locations explored, about 1 to 2 feet of surficial removal would be expected. F.2. Filling and Compaction With this approach, any fill needed to attain final grades is normally required to be placed before the piers are installed. Depending on the amount of fill, the designers might require a waiting period between fill placement and pier installation. This might be required at the at the west corner of the building where slab grades are expected to be on the order of 5 feet above existing grades. Based on the materials encountered, we suspect that such a waiting period might be as little as a week or two. All materials below the building, in the oversized areas, or used as backfill for walls should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of its maximum standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). The existing fill can likely be used for this purpose and this would have to be determined by the aggregate pier contractor. Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, clean sands or gravels are considered to be the preferred materials below the interior slab areas due to utilities and general slab placement. This material would have to be imported. F.3. Aggregate Pier Installation and Post Installation Observations Independent observation of the pier installation may be required. Regardless of that, once the piers are installed, additional inspections should be performed to reasonably confirm correct pier locations relative to the supported foundations and slabs and to also confirm that the soils at the top of the piers are compacted and protected in advance of placing concrete, in accordance with the design -build contractor’s recommendations. The design-build contractor may have additional requirements or requirements that supersede those in this report. G. Building Design G.1. Foundation Depth For frost protection, foundations should be placed at least 42 inches below the exposed ground surface for heated structures. Interior foundations in heated areas may be placed directly below slabs. Footings for unheated structures should be placed at least 60 inches below the exposed ground surface. Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 9 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N G.2 Bearing Capacity and Settlement With the boring data, assumed foundation loads, assumed floor/footing elevations, and implementation of our earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert pressures of up to 3,000 psf. This allowable bearing pressure includes a safety factor of at least 3 against shear failure. Total settlements are expected to be less than 1 inch and differential movement is expected to be less than ½ inch. With the total removal approach, total settlements are expected to be less than 1 inch and differential movement is expected to be less than ½ inch. The intent of the partial removal option is to limit total and differential settlements to that comparable to that expected with the total removal option, although there is a greater potential for larger settlements. Again, if the owner is not willing to accept this risk , the other options must be pursued. If aggregate piers are used, bearing pressures on the order of 5,000 psf are normally feasible with projected settlements generally the same as the other approaches or even smaller. G.3. Vapor Barrier If the slab receives coverings that are less permeable than concrete, a vapor barrier should be placed below the slab. Some contractors prefer to place this barrier below a sand layer to limit the potential for curling. G.4. Slab Design The completed slab subgrade is expected to consist primarily of silty sand to clayey sand materials. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction of no more than 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci).If clean sands are used, a value of 200 can be used. G.5. Lateral Earth Pressures Lateral earth parameters are provided for design of below-grade walls. Backfill should be compacted to at least 95% of its maximum standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). Lateral resistance will depend on the materials used. We recommend using clean free-draining sands having less than 12% particles passing a number 200 sieve for a width of at least 2 feet against basement walls. The natural poorly graded sands and poorly graded sands with silt would be expected to meet this gradation. The following table includes support values for the recommended clean sand. These values do not include safety factors. Poorly Graded Sands (SP) 95% standard Proctor density Internal Friction Angle (degrees) 34 Cohesion (psf) 0 Coefficient of Friction between Concrete and Soil 0.5 Moist Unit Weight (pcf) 120 Backslope Behind Wall (degrees) 0 (Flat) At-Rest Coefficient (Ko) 0.44 Active Coefficient (Ka) 0.28 Passive Coefficient (Kp) 3.54 Equivalent At-Rest Fluid Earth Pressure (psf/ft of wall height) 55 Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 10 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N The actual loads exerted on the structure will depend on the movement or flexure of the structure. For sand fill, horizontal movement or flexure of about 0.2% of the height of soil retained may be sufficient to mobilize frictional forces from the at-rest state to the active state. A draintile should be placed at the base of such walls to prevent hydrostatic build up. H. Paved Area Recommendations H.1. Stripping and Grading We recommend stripping all existing topsoil and pavements from below the new pavements, along with any otherwise unsuitable materials that may be encountered during construction to a depth of at least 2 feet below the paving materials. At the locations explored, about ½ to 2 feet of removal would be expected. As a possible cost saving measure, the milled existing paving materials might also be reserved for reuse at the top of the subgrade. The soils present after stripping are expected to consist primarily of clayey sands but will likely include areas of silty sands or other materials. To promote uniformity with the existing soils, we recommend using similar soils as fill where needed below the new pavements. Existing fills removed from the building areas could likely be used for that purpose. To provide a higher quality subgrade, some designers and owners prefer to place a layer of clean sand at the top of the subgrade. In all cases, the surface receiving these materials should be sloped to drain water out from below the pavement, thereby reducing the potential for soft spots or frost boils. Fill in the upper 3 feet of the subgrade should be compacted to 100% of its standard Proctor Density. Below that depth 95% is recommended. 90% is usually sufficient in green areas. The completed pavement subgrade should be able to pass a proof roll test using a loaded tandem axle truck. Areas not passing the proof roll test should be reworked and or otherwise stabilized as needed to pass the test roll. H.2. Pavement Design The soils present at subgrade elevation are expected to consist primarily of clayey sands but will likely include areas of silty sand or other materials. We recommend using an R-value of no more than 30 for pavement design. Provided the subgrade is stabilized and is able to pass a test roll, we recommend a light duty pavement section consisting of at least 3 inches of asphalt and 6 inches of class 5 aggregate base and a heavy-duty section consisting of least 4 inches of asphalt and 8 inches of aggregate base. The above sections should be considered preliminary, subject to review by the project civil engineering consultant, their experience with pavement design and performance in the area of the project, and subject to the evaluation of the actual soils in proposed paved areas. H.3. Pavement Maintenance Routine maintenance is recommended for improved pavement performance and to increase pavement life. Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 11 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Some thermal shrinkage cracks may develop over time; therefore, pavements should be sealed with a liquid bitumen sealer to mitigate water intrusion into the base course and subgrade sections. Localized patch failures may also develop, which should be cut out and repaired. Periodic seal coating would also help preserve and assure a longer pavement life. I. Stormwater Infiltration Recommendations Infiltration rates were estimated for the various materials encountered in the borings. The following table presents the recommended infiltration rate per soil type from the MPCA Minnesota Storm Water Manual. Please see the individual Log of Boring sheet in the Appendix for more detailed information in regard to soil types. Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Soil Type Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) Clayey Sand to Sandy Clay (SC, CLS) 0.06 Silty Sand (SM) 0.2 to 0.45 Poorly Graded Sand (SP, SP-SM) 0.8 Two rates are provided in the tables for silty sands and sandy silts, and we suggest using the lower rates based on our experience with the actual infiltration rates from double ring infiltrometer testing of these soils on other sites. Double-ring infiltrometer testing could be performed to provide site specific infiltration values, but was not part of our initial work scope and would need to be performed at the proposed infiltration surface elevation." J. General Construction Recommendations J.1. Earthwork The excavations can likely be performed with a variety of equipment. Deep excavations should be performed using a backhoe with a smooth lipped bucket. J.2. Sideslopes The contractor will be required to slope or shore the excavations as needed to meet OSHA requirements for safety and to limit disturbance to surrounding structures. The site soils would be expected to primarily classify as Type C soils as defined by OSHA. J.3. Cold Weather If earthwork occurs during freezing temperatures, good winter construction practices should be used. No frozen fill should be used, and filling should not take place on frozen subgrades. Footing and slab areas should be completely thawed prior to placing concrete. Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 12 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N J.4. Construction Testing and Documentation Grading and excavations should be evaluated and documented by qualified geotechnical personnel to assess the soil remaining at the bottom of excavations. Any fill placed below building areas should be evaluated for conformance to the project gradation recommendations and should be tested for compaction. If filling proceeds during periods of freezing weather, full -time testing should be considered to help confirm that imported fill is thawed prior to and during compaction, and that all snow has been removed before placement of the fill. Although our firm offers testing services relating to civil and structural components of the structure (such as concrete testing, reinforcement observations, etc.), specification of such services is beyond our work scope, and the designer should be consulted as to such requirements. K. Level of Care The services provided for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area, under similar budget and time constraints. This is our professional responsibility. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Gem Lake Apple Ford May 28, 2026 CVT Project #: 27718.26.MNT Page 13 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Appendix Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring # 1-20 Legend to Soil Description Apple Ford, Gem Lake, MN GAG26002 Appendix B-1 APPENDIX B: EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP & HYDROCAD MODEL 2026-05-22 Existing HydroCAD Printed 7/23/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 2.79 2 2 10-year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 4.17 2 3 100-year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 7.30 2 2026-05-22 Existing HydroCAD Printed 7/23/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 5.734 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (1S, 2S, 3S, 4S) 11.922 98 Paved parking, HSG D (2S, 3S, 4S) 10.010 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D (1S) 1.682 98 Water Surface, HSG D (1S) 29.348 91 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Existing HydroCAD Printed 7/23/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7101 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=658,308 sf 11.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.63"Subcatchment 1S: South CR E Flow Length=1,112' Tc=29.5 min CN=88 Runoff=22.39 cfs 2.056 af Runoff Area=56,539 sf 91.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.35"Subcatchment 2S: SW CR E Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=5.35 cfs 0.254 af Runoff Area=304,390 sf 97.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.56"Subcatchment 3S: HWY 61 Ditch Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=29.89 cfs 1.490 af Runoff Area=259,167 sf 66.24% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.96"Subcatchment 4S: NW Wetland Tc=5.0 min CN=92 Runoff=21.80 cfs 0.973 af Inflow=51.68 cfs 2.464 afReach 5R: North Outflow=51.68 cfs 2.464 af Inflow=5.35 cfs 0.254 afReach 6R: SE Outflow=5.35 cfs 0.254 af Inflow=22.39 cfs 2.056 afReach 7R: SW Outflow=22.39 cfs 2.056 af Total Runoff Area = 29.348 ac Runoff Volume = 4.774 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.95" 53.65% Pervious = 15.744 ac 46.35% Impervious = 13.604 ac MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Existing HydroCAD Printed 7/23/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7101 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=658,308 sf 11.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.89"Subcatchment 1S: South CR E Flow Length=1,112' Tc=29.5 min CN=88 Runoff=39.18 cfs 3.636 af Runoff Area=56,539 sf 91.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.71"Subcatchment 2S: SW CR E Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=8.20 cfs 0.401 af Runoff Area=304,390 sf 97.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.93"Subcatchment 3S: HWY 61 Ditch Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=45.04 cfs 2.291 af Runoff Area=259,167 sf 66.24% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.28"Subcatchment 4S: NW Wetland Tc=5.0 min CN=92 Runoff=35.24 cfs 1.627 af Inflow=80.27 cfs 3.918 afReach 5R: North Outflow=80.27 cfs 3.918 af Inflow=8.20 cfs 0.401 afReach 6R: SE Outflow=8.20 cfs 0.401 af Inflow=39.18 cfs 3.636 afReach 7R: SW Outflow=39.18 cfs 3.636 af Total Runoff Area = 29.348 ac Runoff Volume = 7.956 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.25" 53.65% Pervious = 15.744 ac 46.35% Impervious = 13.604 ac MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Existing HydroCAD Printed 7/23/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 20HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7101 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=658,308 sf 11.13% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.89"Subcatchment 1S: South CR E Flow Length=1,112' Tc=29.5 min CN=88 Runoff=77.55 cfs 7.412 af Runoff Area=56,539 sf 91.41% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.82"Subcatchment 2S: SW CR E Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=14.61 cfs 0.738 af Runoff Area=304,390 sf 97.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.06"Subcatchment 3S: HWY 61 Ditch Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=79.22 cfs 4.112 af Runoff Area=259,167 sf 66.24% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.35"Subcatchment 4S: NW Wetland Tc=5.0 min CN=92 Runoff=65.21 cfs 3.149 af Inflow=144.42 cfs 7.260 afReach 5R: North Outflow=144.42 cfs 7.260 af Inflow=14.61 cfs 0.738 afReach 6R: SE Outflow=14.61 cfs 0.738 af Inflow=77.55 cfs 7.412 afReach 7R: SW Outflow=77.55 cfs 7.412 af Total Runoff Area = 29.348 ac Runoff Volume = 15.410 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.30" 53.65% Pervious = 15.744 ac 46.35% Impervious = 13.604 ac Table of Contents2026-05-22 Existing HydroCAD Printed 7/23/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Reports 1 Routing Diagram 2 Rainfall Events Listing 3 Area Listing (all nodes) 2-year Event 4 Node Listing 5 Subcat 1S: South CR E 6 Subcat 2S: SW CR E 7 Subcat 3S: HWY 61 Ditch 8 Subcat 4S: NW Wetland 9 Reach 5R: North 10 Reach 6R: SE 11 Reach 7R: SW 10-year Event 12 Node Listing 13 Subcat 1S: South CR E 14 Subcat 2S: SW CR E 15 Subcat 3S: HWY 61 Ditch 16 Subcat 4S: NW Wetland 17 Reach 5R: North 18 Reach 6R: SE 19 Reach 7R: SW 100-year Event 20 Node Listing 21 Subcat 1S: South CR E 22 Subcat 2S: SW CR E 23 Subcat 3S: HWY 61 Ditch 24 Subcat 4S: NW Wetland 25 Reach 5R: North 26 Reach 6R: SE 27 Reach 7R: SW Apple Ford, Gem Lake, MN GAG26002 Appendix C-1 APPENDIX C: PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP & HYDROCAD MODEL 2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 2.79 2 2 10-year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 4.17 2 3 100-year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 7.30 2 2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.100 89 <50% Grass cover, Poor, HSG D (15S) 3.667 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (1S, 2S, 3S, 4S, 8S, 10S) 13.867 98 Paved parking, HSG D (1S, 2S, 3S, 4S, 8S, 9S) 11.138 89 Row crops, straight row, Good, HSG D (9S) 0.577 98 Water Surface, HSG D (2S, 3S, 4S) 29.348 92 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7101 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=229,872 sf 94.79% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.45"Subcatchment 1S: West Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=97 Runoff=22.20 cfs 1.078 af Runoff Area=146,647 sf 87.81% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.35"Subcatchment 2S: SE Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=13.86 cfs 0.658 af Runoff Area=202,063 sf 89.14% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.35"Subcatchment 3S: NE Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=19.10 cfs 0.907 af Runoff Area=105,254 sf 85.10% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.24"Subcatchment 4S: North Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=95 Runoff=9.71 cfs 0.452 af Runoff Area=27,383 sf 43.27% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.63"Subcatchment 8S: NE D-D Tc=0.0 min CN=88 Runoff=2.22 cfs 0.086 af Runoff Area=486,108 sf 0.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.71"Subcatchment 9S: South Undev. Flow Length=959' Tc=27.6 min CN=89 Runoff=17.91 cfs 1.591 af Runoff Area=76,721 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.09"Subcatchment 10S: North Undev. Tc=5.0 min CN=80 Runoff=3.79 cfs 0.161 af Runoff Area=4,335 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.71"Subcatchment 15S: South D-D Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.33 cfs 0.014 af Inflow=7.49 cfs 1.602 afReach 5R: North Outflow=7.49 cfs 1.602 af Inflow=1.32 cfs 0.672 afReach 6R: SE Outflow=1.32 cfs 0.672 af Inflow=19.35 cfs 2.669 afReach 7R: SW Outflow=19.35 cfs 2.669 af Peak Elev=964.19' Storage=21,052 cf Inflow=9.71 cfs 0.452 afPond 11P: NW Pond Outflow=2.24 cfs 0.452 af Peak Elev=963.30' Storage=32,813 cf Inflow=19.10 cfs 0.907 afPond 12P: NE Pond Outflow=3.83 cfs 0.904 af Peak Elev=962.32' Storage=26,984 cf Inflow=13.86 cfs 0.658 afPond 13P: SE Pond Outflow=1.25 cfs 0.658 af Peak Elev=960.13' Storage=26,807 cf Inflow=22.20 cfs 1.078 afPond 14P: SW Underground Outflow=1.59 cfs 1.078 af Total Runoff Area = 29.348 ac Runoff Volume = 4.946 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.02" 50.78% Pervious = 14.904 ac 49.22% Impervious = 14.444 ac MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 18HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 11P: NW Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.00 960.60 0.00 960.65 0.00 960.70 0.00 960.75 0.00 960.80 0.00 960.85 0.00 960.90 0.00 960.95 0.00 961.00 0.00 961.05 0.00 961.10 0.00 961.15 0.00 961.20 0.00 961.25 0.00 961.30 0.00 961.35 0.00 961.40 0.00 961.45 0.00 961.50 0.00 961.55 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 961.60 0.00 961.65 0.00 961.70 0.00 961.75 0.00 961.80 0.00 961.85 0.00 961.90 0.00 961.95 0.00 962.00 0.00 962.05 0.00 962.10 0.00 962.15 0.00 962.20 0.00 962.25 0.00 962.30 0.00 962.35 0.00 962.40 0.00 962.45 0.00 962.50 0.00 962.55 0.00 962.60 0.00 962.65 0.00 962.70 0.00 962.75 0.00 962.80 0.00 962.85 0.00 962.90 0.00 962.95 0.00 963.00 0.00 963.05 0.01 963.10 0.03 963.15 0.07 963.20 0.11 963.25 0.17 963.30 0.23 963.35 0.30 963.40 0.36 963.45 0.43 963.50 0.47 963.55 0.52 963.60 0.56 963.65 0.60 963.70 0.63 963.75 0.67 963.80 0.70 963.85 0.73 963.90 0.76 963.95 0.79 964.00 0.82 964.05 1.03 964.10 1.39 964.15 1.85 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 964.20 2.39 964.25 2.99 964.30 3.66 964.35 4.38 964.40 5.16 964.45 5.98 964.50 6.85 964.55 7.61 964.60 7.84 964.65 8.07 964.70 8.29 964.75 8.51 964.80 8.72 964.85 8.92 964.90 9.12 964.95 9.32 965.00 9.51 965.05 9.70 965.10 9.89 965.15 10.07 965.20 10.25 965.25 10.42 965.30 10.59 965.35 10.76 965.40 10.93 965.45 11.09 965.50 11.26 965.55 11.42 965.60 11.57 965.65 11.73 965.70 11.88 965.75 12.03 965.80 12.18 965.85 12.33 965.90 12.48 965.95 12.62 966.00 12.76 MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 19HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 11P: NW Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 959.00 747 0 959.10 835 79 959.20 922 167 959.30 1,010 264 959.40 1,098 369 959.50 1,185 483 959.60 1,273 606 959.70 1,360 738 959.80 1,448 878 959.90 1,536 1,027 960.00 1,623 1,185 960.10 1,711 1,352 960.20 1,799 1,527 960.30 1,886 1,712 960.40 1,974 1,905 960.50 2,062 2,106 960.60 2,149 2,317 960.70 2,237 2,536 960.80 2,324 2,764 960.90 2,412 3,001 961.00 2,500 3,247 961.10 2,587 3,501 961.20 2,675 3,764 961.30 2,763 4,036 961.40 2,850 4,317 961.50 2,938 4,606 961.60 3,025 4,904 961.70 3,113 5,211 961.80 3,201 5,527 961.90 3,288 5,851 962.00 3,376 6,185 962.10 3,737 6,540 962.20 4,099 6,932 962.30 4,460 7,360 962.40 4,822 7,824 962.50 5,183 8,324 962.60 5,544 8,861 962.70 5,906 9,433 962.80 6,267 10,042 962.90 6,629 10,687 963.00 6,990 11,368 963.10 7,187 12,076 963.20 7,385 12,805 963.30 7,582 13,553 963.40 7,780 14,321 963.50 7,977 15,109 963.60 8,175 15,917 963.70 8,372 16,744 963.80 8,569 17,591 963.90 8,767 18,458 964.00 8,964 19,345 964.10 9,162 20,251 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 964.20 9,359 21,177 964.30 9,557 22,123 964.40 9,754 23,088 964.50 9,952 24,074 964.60 10,149 25,079 964.70 10,346 26,103 964.80 10,544 27,148 964.90 10,741 28,212 965.00 10,939 29,296 965.10 11,136 30,400 965.20 11,334 31,523 965.30 11,531 32,667 965.40 11,728 33,830 965.50 11,926 35,012 965.60 12,123 36,215 965.70 12,321 37,437 965.80 12,518 38,679 965.90 12,716 39,941 966.00 12,913 41,222 MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 22HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 12P: NE Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.00 958.10 0.00 958.15 0.00 958.20 0.00 958.25 0.00 958.30 0.00 958.35 0.00 958.40 0.00 958.45 0.00 958.50 0.00 958.55 0.00 958.60 0.00 958.65 0.00 958.70 0.00 958.75 0.00 958.80 0.00 958.85 0.00 958.90 0.00 958.95 0.00 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 960.60 0.00 960.65 0.00 960.70 0.00 960.75 0.00 960.80 0.00 960.85 0.00 960.90 0.00 960.95 0.00 961.00 0.00 961.05 0.00 961.10 0.00 961.15 0.00 961.20 0.00 961.25 0.00 961.30 0.00 961.35 0.00 961.40 0.00 961.45 0.00 961.50 0.00 961.55 0.01 961.60 0.03 961.65 0.07 961.70 0.11 961.75 0.17 961.80 0.23 961.85 0.30 961.90 0.36 961.95 0.43 962.00 0.47 962.05 0.52 962.10 0.56 962.15 0.60 962.20 0.63 962.25 0.67 962.30 0.70 962.35 0.73 962.40 0.76 962.45 0.79 962.50 0.82 962.55 0.85 962.60 0.87 962.65 0.90 962.70 0.92 962.75 0.95 962.80 0.97 962.85 0.99 962.90 1.01 962.95 1.04 963.00 1.06 963.05 1.26 963.10 1.62 963.15 2.07 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 963.20 2.60 963.25 3.20 963.30 3.87 963.35 4.59 963.40 5.36 963.45 6.18 963.50 7.04 963.55 7.95 963.60 8.90 963.65 9.88 963.70 10.91 963.75 11.97 963.80 13.07 963.85 14.20 963.90 15.37 963.95 16.56 964.00 17.79 964.05 19.05 964.10 20.34 964.15 20.90 964.20 21.20 964.25 21.51 964.30 21.80 964.35 22.10 964.40 22.39 964.45 22.68 964.50 22.96 964.55 23.24 964.60 23.52 964.65 23.79 964.70 24.06 964.75 24.33 964.80 24.59 964.85 24.85 964.90 25.11 964.95 25.37 965.00 25.62 965.05 25.87 965.10 26.12 965.15 26.37 965.20 26.61 965.25 26.85 965.30 27.09 965.35 27.33 965.40 27.57 965.45 27.80 965.50 28.03 965.55 28.26 965.60 28.49 965.65 28.71 965.70 28.94 965.75 29.16 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 965.80 29.38 965.85 29.60 965.90 29.82 965.95 30.03 966.00 30.25 MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 23HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 12P: NE Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 958.00 756 0 958.10 879 82 958.20 1,003 176 958.30 1,126 282 958.40 1,249 401 958.50 1,373 532 958.60 1,496 676 958.70 1,619 831 958.80 1,743 999 958.90 1,866 1,180 959.00 1,989 1,373 959.10 2,113 1,578 959.20 2,236 1,795 959.30 2,359 2,025 959.40 2,482 2,267 959.50 2,606 2,521 959.60 2,729 2,788 959.70 2,852 3,067 959.80 2,976 3,359 959.90 3,099 3,662 960.00 3,222 3,978 960.10 3,346 4,307 960.20 3,469 4,648 960.30 3,592 5,001 960.40 3,716 5,366 960.50 3,839 5,744 960.60 4,375 6,154 960.70 4,911 6,619 960.80 5,447 7,137 960.90 5,983 7,708 961.00 6,520 8,333 961.10 7,056 9,012 961.20 7,592 9,744 961.30 8,128 10,530 961.40 8,664 11,370 961.50 9,200 12,263 961.60 9,447 13,196 961.70 9,695 14,153 961.80 9,942 15,135 961.90 10,190 16,141 962.00 10,437 17,173 962.10 10,685 18,229 962.20 10,932 19,310 962.30 11,180 20,415 962.40 11,427 21,545 962.50 11,675 22,701 962.60 11,922 23,880 962.70 12,170 25,085 962.80 12,417 26,314 962.90 12,665 27,568 963.00 12,912 28,847 963.10 13,211 30,153 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 963.20 13,509 31,489 963.30 13,808 32,855 963.40 14,106 34,251 963.50 14,405 35,676 963.60 14,703 37,132 963.70 15,002 38,617 963.80 15,301 40,132 963.90 15,599 41,677 964.00 15,898 43,252 964.10 16,196 44,857 964.20 16,495 46,491 964.30 16,793 48,156 964.40 17,092 49,850 964.50 17,391 51,574 964.60 17,689 53,328 964.70 17,988 55,112 964.80 18,286 56,926 964.90 18,585 58,769 965.00 18,883 60,643 965.10 19,182 62,546 965.20 19,480 64,479 965.30 19,779 66,442 965.40 20,078 68,435 965.50 20,376 70,457 965.60 20,675 72,510 965.70 20,973 74,592 965.80 21,272 76,705 965.90 21,570 78,847 966.00 21,869 81,019 MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 26HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 13P: SE Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 956.50 0.00 956.55 0.00 956.60 0.00 956.65 0.00 956.70 0.00 956.75 0.00 956.80 0.00 956.85 0.00 956.90 0.00 956.95 0.00 957.00 0.00 957.05 0.00 957.10 0.00 957.15 0.00 957.20 0.00 957.25 0.00 957.30 0.00 957.35 0.00 957.40 0.00 957.45 0.00 957.50 0.00 957.55 0.00 957.60 0.00 957.65 0.00 957.70 0.00 957.75 0.00 957.80 0.00 957.85 0.00 957.90 0.00 957.95 0.00 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.00 958.10 0.00 958.15 0.00 958.20 0.00 958.25 0.00 958.30 0.00 958.35 0.00 958.40 0.00 958.45 0.00 958.50 0.00 958.55 0.00 958.60 0.00 958.65 0.00 958.70 0.00 958.75 0.00 958.80 0.00 958.85 0.00 958.90 0.00 958.95 0.00 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.01 960.60 0.03 960.65 0.07 960.70 0.11 960.75 0.17 960.80 0.23 960.85 0.30 960.90 0.36 960.95 0.43 961.00 0.47 961.05 0.52 961.10 0.56 961.15 0.60 961.20 0.63 961.25 0.67 961.30 0.70 961.35 0.73 961.40 0.76 961.45 0.79 961.50 0.82 961.55 0.85 961.60 0.87 961.65 0.90 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 961.70 0.92 961.75 0.95 961.80 0.97 961.85 0.99 961.90 1.01 961.95 1.04 962.00 1.06 962.05 1.08 962.10 1.10 962.15 1.12 962.20 1.14 962.25 1.16 962.30 1.18 962.35 1.38 962.40 1.73 962.45 2.18 962.50 2.72 962.55 3.32 962.60 3.98 962.65 4.69 962.70 5.46 962.75 6.28 962.80 7.14 962.85 8.05 962.90 9.00 962.95 9.98 963.00 11.01 963.05 11.40 963.10 11.57 963.15 11.73 963.20 11.88 963.25 12.03 963.30 12.18 963.35 12.33 963.40 12.48 963.45 12.62 963.50 12.76 963.55 12.90 963.60 13.04 963.65 13.18 963.70 13.32 963.75 13.45 963.80 13.59 963.85 13.72 963.90 13.85 963.95 13.98 964.00 14.11 964.05 14.24 964.10 14.36 964.15 14.49 964.20 14.61 964.25 14.74 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 964.30 14.86 964.35 14.98 964.40 15.10 964.45 15.22 964.50 15.34 964.55 15.46 964.60 15.57 964.65 15.69 964.70 15.80 964.75 15.92 964.80 16.03 964.85 16.14 964.90 16.26 964.95 16.37 965.00 16.48 MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 27HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 13P: SE Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 956.50 439 0 956.60 529 48 956.70 620 106 956.80 710 172 956.90 801 248 957.00 891 333 957.10 982 426 957.20 1,072 529 957.30 1,162 641 957.40 1,253 761 957.50 1,343 891 957.60 1,434 1,030 957.70 1,524 1,178 957.80 1,615 1,335 957.90 1,705 1,501 958.00 1,796 1,676 958.10 1,886 1,860 958.20 1,976 2,053 958.30 2,067 2,255 958.40 2,157 2,466 958.50 2,248 2,687 958.60 2,338 2,916 958.70 2,429 3,154 958.80 2,519 3,402 958.90 2,609 3,658 959.00 2,700 3,924 959.10 2,790 4,198 959.20 2,881 4,482 959.30 2,971 4,774 959.40 3,062 5,076 959.50 3,152 5,387 959.60 3,612 5,725 959.70 4,072 6,109 959.80 4,532 6,539 959.90 4,992 7,015 960.00 5,452 7,538 960.10 5,912 8,106 960.20 6,372 8,720 960.30 6,832 9,380 960.40 7,292 10,086 960.50 7,752 10,839 960.60 7,877 11,620 960.70 8,002 12,414 960.80 8,127 13,220 960.90 8,252 14,039 961.00 8,378 14,871 961.10 8,503 15,715 961.20 8,628 16,571 961.30 8,753 17,440 961.40 8,878 18,322 961.50 9,003 19,216 961.60 9,128 20,123 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 961.70 9,253 21,042 961.80 9,379 21,973 961.90 9,504 22,917 962.00 9,629 23,874 962.10 9,754 24,843 962.20 9,879 25,825 962.30 10,004 26,819 962.40 10,129 27,826 962.50 10,254 28,845 962.60 10,380 29,877 962.70 10,505 30,921 962.80 10,630 31,978 962.90 10,755 33,047 963.00 10,880 34,129 963.10 11,065 35,226 963.20 11,250 36,341 963.30 11,434 37,476 963.40 11,619 38,628 963.50 11,804 39,800 963.60 11,913 40,985 963.70 12,022 42,182 963.80 12,131 43,390 963.90 12,240 44,608 964.00 12,349 45,838 964.10 12,349 45,838 964.20 12,349 45,838 964.30 12,349 45,838 964.40 12,349 45,838 964.50 12,349 45,838 964.60 12,349 45,838 964.70 12,349 45,838 964.80 12,349 45,838 964.90 12,349 45,838 965.00 12,349 45,838 MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 31HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 14P: SW Underground Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 957.50 0.00 957.55 0.00 957.60 0.00 957.65 0.00 957.70 0.00 957.75 0.00 957.80 0.00 957.85 0.00 957.90 0.00 957.95 0.00 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.01 958.10 0.03 958.15 0.07 958.20 0.11 958.25 0.17 958.30 0.23 958.35 0.30 958.40 0.36 958.45 0.43 958.50 0.47 958.55 0.52 958.60 0.56 958.65 0.60 958.70 0.63 958.75 0.67 958.80 0.70 958.85 0.73 958.90 0.76 958.95 0.79 959.00 0.82 959.05 0.85 959.10 0.87 959.15 0.90 959.20 0.92 959.25 0.95 959.30 0.97 959.35 0.99 959.40 1.01 959.45 1.04 959.50 1.06 959.55 1.08 959.60 1.10 959.65 1.12 959.70 1.14 959.75 1.16 959.80 1.18 959.85 1.20 959.90 1.22 959.95 1.27 960.00 1.34 960.05 1.42 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 960.10 1.52 960.15 1.63 960.20 1.76 960.25 1.89 960.30 2.04 960.35 2.19 960.40 2.35 960.45 2.51 960.50 2.67 960.55 2.83 960.60 2.97 960.65 3.10 960.70 3.21 960.75 3.32 960.80 3.43 960.85 3.53 960.90 3.63 960.95 3.72 961.00 3.82 961.05 3.91 961.10 3.99 961.15 4.08 961.20 4.16 961.25 4.24 961.30 4.32 961.35 4.40 961.40 4.47 961.45 4.55 961.50 4.62 961.55 4.88 961.60 5.28 961.65 5.78 961.70 6.36 961.75 7.01 961.80 7.72 961.85 8.49 961.90 9.31 961.95 10.17 962.00 11.08 962.05 12.03 962.10 13.02 962.15 14.05 962.20 15.12 962.25 15.92 962.30 16.03 962.35 16.14 962.40 16.26 962.45 16.37 962.50 16.48 962.55 16.59 962.60 16.70 962.65 16.80 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 962.70 16.91 962.75 17.02 962.80 17.12 962.85 17.23 962.90 17.33 962.95 17.44 963.00 17.54 963.05 17.64 963.10 17.75 963.15 17.85 963.20 17.95 963.25 18.05 963.30 18.15 963.35 18.25 963.40 18.35 963.45 18.45 963.50 18.54 MSE 24-hr 3 2-year Rainfall=2.79"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 32HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 14P: SW Underground Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 957.50 0 957.55 0 957.60 0 957.65 0 957.70 0 957.75 0 957.80 0 957.85 0 957.90 0 957.95 0 958.00 0 958.05 84 958.10 315 958.15 576 958.20 885 958.25 1,233 958.30 1,616 958.35 2,030 958.40 2,472 958.45 2,941 958.50 3,434 958.55 3,948 958.60 4,484 958.65 5,040 958.70 5,614 958.75 6,205 958.80 6,813 958.85 7,437 958.90 8,075 958.95 8,728 959.00 9,393 959.05 10,071 959.10 10,762 959.15 11,463 959.20 12,175 959.25 12,898 959.30 13,630 959.35 14,372 959.40 15,122 959.45 15,880 959.50 16,646 959.55 17,420 959.60 18,200 959.65 18,987 959.70 19,780 959.75 20,578 959.80 21,382 959.85 22,191 959.90 23,004 959.95 23,822 960.00 24,643 960.05 25,468 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 960.10 26,296 960.15 27,126 960.20 27,959 960.25 28,794 960.30 29,630 960.35 30,468 960.40 31,307 960.45 32,147 960.50 32,987 960.55 33,827 960.60 34,666 960.65 35,505 960.70 36,343 960.75 37,180 960.80 38,015 960.85 38,847 960.90 39,678 960.95 40,506 961.00 41,330 961.05 42,152 961.10 42,969 961.15 43,782 961.20 44,591 961.25 45,395 961.30 46,194 961.35 46,987 961.40 47,773 961.45 48,554 961.50 49,327 961.55 50,093 961.60 50,852 961.65 51,602 961.70 52,343 961.75 53,076 961.80 53,798 961.85 54,510 961.90 55,212 961.95 55,902 962.00 56,580 962.05 57,246 962.10 57,898 962.15 58,536 962.20 59,160 962.25 59,768 962.30 60,359 962.35 60,934 962.40 61,489 962.45 62,025 962.50 62,540 962.55 63,032 962.60 63,501 962.65 63,943 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 962.70 64,357 962.75 64,740 962.80 65,088 962.85 65,397 962.90 65,658 962.95 65,862 963.00 65,973 963.05 65,973 963.10 65,973 963.15 65,973 963.20 65,973 963.25 65,973 963.30 65,973 963.35 65,973 963.40 65,973 963.45 65,973 963.50 65,973 MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 33HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7101 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=229,872 sf 94.79% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.82"Subcatchment 1S: West Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=97 Runoff=33.73 cfs 1.680 af Runoff Area=146,647 sf 87.81% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.71"Subcatchment 2S: SE Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=21.28 cfs 1.040 af Runoff Area=202,063 sf 89.14% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.71"Subcatchment 3S: NE Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=29.32 cfs 1.434 af Runoff Area=105,254 sf 85.10% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.60"Subcatchment 4S: North Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=95 Runoff=15.07 cfs 0.725 af Runoff Area=27,383 sf 43.27% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.89"Subcatchment 8S: NE D-D Tc=0.0 min CN=88 Runoff=3.74 cfs 0.151 af Runoff Area=486,108 sf 0.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.98"Subcatchment 9S: South Undev. Flow Length=959' Tc=27.6 min CN=89 Runoff=30.82 cfs 2.774 af Runoff Area=76,721 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.18"Subcatchment 10S: North Undev. Tc=5.0 min CN=80 Runoff=7.50 cfs 0.320 af Runoff Area=4,335 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.98"Subcatchment 15S: South D-D Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.55 cfs 0.025 af Inflow=25.15 cfs 2.627 afReach 5R: North Outflow=25.15 cfs 2.627 af Inflow=7.19 cfs 1.065 afReach 6R: SE Outflow=7.19 cfs 1.065 af Inflow=34.38 cfs 4.454 afReach 7R: SW Outflow=34.38 cfs 4.454 af Peak Elev=964.52' Storage=24,302 cf Inflow=15.07 cfs 0.725 afPond 11P: NW Pond Outflow=7.27 cfs 0.725 af Peak Elev=963.77' Storage=39,688 cf Inflow=29.32 cfs 1.434 afPond 12P: NE Pond Outflow=12.43 cfs 1.431 af Peak Elev=962.79' Storage=31,891 cf Inflow=21.28 cfs 1.040 afPond 13P: SE Pond Outflow=7.00 cfs 1.040 af Peak Elev=960.91' Storage=39,839 cf Inflow=33.73 cfs 1.680 afPond 14P: SW Underground Outflow=3.65 cfs 1.680 af Total Runoff Area = 29.348 ac Runoff Volume = 8.149 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.33" 50.78% Pervious = 14.904 ac 49.22% Impervious = 14.444 ac MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 47HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 11P: NW Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.00 960.60 0.00 960.65 0.00 960.70 0.00 960.75 0.00 960.80 0.00 960.85 0.00 960.90 0.00 960.95 0.00 961.00 0.00 961.05 0.00 961.10 0.00 961.15 0.00 961.20 0.00 961.25 0.00 961.30 0.00 961.35 0.00 961.40 0.00 961.45 0.00 961.50 0.00 961.55 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 961.60 0.00 961.65 0.00 961.70 0.00 961.75 0.00 961.80 0.00 961.85 0.00 961.90 0.00 961.95 0.00 962.00 0.00 962.05 0.00 962.10 0.00 962.15 0.00 962.20 0.00 962.25 0.00 962.30 0.00 962.35 0.00 962.40 0.00 962.45 0.00 962.50 0.00 962.55 0.00 962.60 0.00 962.65 0.00 962.70 0.00 962.75 0.00 962.80 0.00 962.85 0.00 962.90 0.00 962.95 0.00 963.00 0.00 963.05 0.01 963.10 0.03 963.15 0.07 963.20 0.11 963.25 0.17 963.30 0.23 963.35 0.30 963.40 0.36 963.45 0.43 963.50 0.47 963.55 0.52 963.60 0.56 963.65 0.60 963.70 0.63 963.75 0.67 963.80 0.70 963.85 0.73 963.90 0.76 963.95 0.79 964.00 0.82 964.05 1.03 964.10 1.39 964.15 1.85 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 964.20 2.39 964.25 2.99 964.30 3.66 964.35 4.38 964.40 5.16 964.45 5.98 964.50 6.85 964.55 7.61 964.60 7.84 964.65 8.07 964.70 8.29 964.75 8.51 964.80 8.72 964.85 8.92 964.90 9.12 964.95 9.32 965.00 9.51 965.05 9.70 965.10 9.89 965.15 10.07 965.20 10.25 965.25 10.42 965.30 10.59 965.35 10.76 965.40 10.93 965.45 11.09 965.50 11.26 965.55 11.42 965.60 11.57 965.65 11.73 965.70 11.88 965.75 12.03 965.80 12.18 965.85 12.33 965.90 12.48 965.95 12.62 966.00 12.76 MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 48HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 11P: NW Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 959.00 747 0 959.10 835 79 959.20 922 167 959.30 1,010 264 959.40 1,098 369 959.50 1,185 483 959.60 1,273 606 959.70 1,360 738 959.80 1,448 878 959.90 1,536 1,027 960.00 1,623 1,185 960.10 1,711 1,352 960.20 1,799 1,527 960.30 1,886 1,712 960.40 1,974 1,905 960.50 2,062 2,106 960.60 2,149 2,317 960.70 2,237 2,536 960.80 2,324 2,764 960.90 2,412 3,001 961.00 2,500 3,247 961.10 2,587 3,501 961.20 2,675 3,764 961.30 2,763 4,036 961.40 2,850 4,317 961.50 2,938 4,606 961.60 3,025 4,904 961.70 3,113 5,211 961.80 3,201 5,527 961.90 3,288 5,851 962.00 3,376 6,185 962.10 3,737 6,540 962.20 4,099 6,932 962.30 4,460 7,360 962.40 4,822 7,824 962.50 5,183 8,324 962.60 5,544 8,861 962.70 5,906 9,433 962.80 6,267 10,042 962.90 6,629 10,687 963.00 6,990 11,368 963.10 7,187 12,076 963.20 7,385 12,805 963.30 7,582 13,553 963.40 7,780 14,321 963.50 7,977 15,109 963.60 8,175 15,917 963.70 8,372 16,744 963.80 8,569 17,591 963.90 8,767 18,458 964.00 8,964 19,345 964.10 9,162 20,251 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 964.20 9,359 21,177 964.30 9,557 22,123 964.40 9,754 23,088 964.50 9,952 24,074 964.60 10,149 25,079 964.70 10,346 26,103 964.80 10,544 27,148 964.90 10,741 28,212 965.00 10,939 29,296 965.10 11,136 30,400 965.20 11,334 31,523 965.30 11,531 32,667 965.40 11,728 33,830 965.50 11,926 35,012 965.60 12,123 36,215 965.70 12,321 37,437 965.80 12,518 38,679 965.90 12,716 39,941 966.00 12,913 41,222 MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 51HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 12P: NE Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.00 958.10 0.00 958.15 0.00 958.20 0.00 958.25 0.00 958.30 0.00 958.35 0.00 958.40 0.00 958.45 0.00 958.50 0.00 958.55 0.00 958.60 0.00 958.65 0.00 958.70 0.00 958.75 0.00 958.80 0.00 958.85 0.00 958.90 0.00 958.95 0.00 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 960.60 0.00 960.65 0.00 960.70 0.00 960.75 0.00 960.80 0.00 960.85 0.00 960.90 0.00 960.95 0.00 961.00 0.00 961.05 0.00 961.10 0.00 961.15 0.00 961.20 0.00 961.25 0.00 961.30 0.00 961.35 0.00 961.40 0.00 961.45 0.00 961.50 0.00 961.55 0.01 961.60 0.03 961.65 0.07 961.70 0.11 961.75 0.17 961.80 0.23 961.85 0.30 961.90 0.36 961.95 0.43 962.00 0.47 962.05 0.52 962.10 0.56 962.15 0.60 962.20 0.63 962.25 0.67 962.30 0.70 962.35 0.73 962.40 0.76 962.45 0.79 962.50 0.82 962.55 0.85 962.60 0.87 962.65 0.90 962.70 0.92 962.75 0.95 962.80 0.97 962.85 0.99 962.90 1.01 962.95 1.04 963.00 1.06 963.05 1.26 963.10 1.62 963.15 2.07 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 963.20 2.60 963.25 3.20 963.30 3.87 963.35 4.59 963.40 5.36 963.45 6.18 963.50 7.04 963.55 7.95 963.60 8.90 963.65 9.88 963.70 10.91 963.75 11.97 963.80 13.07 963.85 14.20 963.90 15.37 963.95 16.56 964.00 17.79 964.05 19.05 964.10 20.34 964.15 20.90 964.20 21.20 964.25 21.51 964.30 21.80 964.35 22.10 964.40 22.39 964.45 22.68 964.50 22.96 964.55 23.24 964.60 23.52 964.65 23.79 964.70 24.06 964.75 24.33 964.80 24.59 964.85 24.85 964.90 25.11 964.95 25.37 965.00 25.62 965.05 25.87 965.10 26.12 965.15 26.37 965.20 26.61 965.25 26.85 965.30 27.09 965.35 27.33 965.40 27.57 965.45 27.80 965.50 28.03 965.55 28.26 965.60 28.49 965.65 28.71 965.70 28.94 965.75 29.16 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 965.80 29.38 965.85 29.60 965.90 29.82 965.95 30.03 966.00 30.25 MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 52HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 12P: NE Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 958.00 756 0 958.10 879 82 958.20 1,003 176 958.30 1,126 282 958.40 1,249 401 958.50 1,373 532 958.60 1,496 676 958.70 1,619 831 958.80 1,743 999 958.90 1,866 1,180 959.00 1,989 1,373 959.10 2,113 1,578 959.20 2,236 1,795 959.30 2,359 2,025 959.40 2,482 2,267 959.50 2,606 2,521 959.60 2,729 2,788 959.70 2,852 3,067 959.80 2,976 3,359 959.90 3,099 3,662 960.00 3,222 3,978 960.10 3,346 4,307 960.20 3,469 4,648 960.30 3,592 5,001 960.40 3,716 5,366 960.50 3,839 5,744 960.60 4,375 6,154 960.70 4,911 6,619 960.80 5,447 7,137 960.90 5,983 7,708 961.00 6,520 8,333 961.10 7,056 9,012 961.20 7,592 9,744 961.30 8,128 10,530 961.40 8,664 11,370 961.50 9,200 12,263 961.60 9,447 13,196 961.70 9,695 14,153 961.80 9,942 15,135 961.90 10,190 16,141 962.00 10,437 17,173 962.10 10,685 18,229 962.20 10,932 19,310 962.30 11,180 20,415 962.40 11,427 21,545 962.50 11,675 22,701 962.60 11,922 23,880 962.70 12,170 25,085 962.80 12,417 26,314 962.90 12,665 27,568 963.00 12,912 28,847 963.10 13,211 30,153 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 963.20 13,509 31,489 963.30 13,808 32,855 963.40 14,106 34,251 963.50 14,405 35,676 963.60 14,703 37,132 963.70 15,002 38,617 963.80 15,301 40,132 963.90 15,599 41,677 964.00 15,898 43,252 964.10 16,196 44,857 964.20 16,495 46,491 964.30 16,793 48,156 964.40 17,092 49,850 964.50 17,391 51,574 964.60 17,689 53,328 964.70 17,988 55,112 964.80 18,286 56,926 964.90 18,585 58,769 965.00 18,883 60,643 965.10 19,182 62,546 965.20 19,480 64,479 965.30 19,779 66,442 965.40 20,078 68,435 965.50 20,376 70,457 965.60 20,675 72,510 965.70 20,973 74,592 965.80 21,272 76,705 965.90 21,570 78,847 966.00 21,869 81,019 MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 55HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 13P: SE Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 956.50 0.00 956.55 0.00 956.60 0.00 956.65 0.00 956.70 0.00 956.75 0.00 956.80 0.00 956.85 0.00 956.90 0.00 956.95 0.00 957.00 0.00 957.05 0.00 957.10 0.00 957.15 0.00 957.20 0.00 957.25 0.00 957.30 0.00 957.35 0.00 957.40 0.00 957.45 0.00 957.50 0.00 957.55 0.00 957.60 0.00 957.65 0.00 957.70 0.00 957.75 0.00 957.80 0.00 957.85 0.00 957.90 0.00 957.95 0.00 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.00 958.10 0.00 958.15 0.00 958.20 0.00 958.25 0.00 958.30 0.00 958.35 0.00 958.40 0.00 958.45 0.00 958.50 0.00 958.55 0.00 958.60 0.00 958.65 0.00 958.70 0.00 958.75 0.00 958.80 0.00 958.85 0.00 958.90 0.00 958.95 0.00 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.01 960.60 0.03 960.65 0.07 960.70 0.11 960.75 0.17 960.80 0.23 960.85 0.30 960.90 0.36 960.95 0.43 961.00 0.47 961.05 0.52 961.10 0.56 961.15 0.60 961.20 0.63 961.25 0.67 961.30 0.70 961.35 0.73 961.40 0.76 961.45 0.79 961.50 0.82 961.55 0.85 961.60 0.87 961.65 0.90 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 961.70 0.92 961.75 0.95 961.80 0.97 961.85 0.99 961.90 1.01 961.95 1.04 962.00 1.06 962.05 1.08 962.10 1.10 962.15 1.12 962.20 1.14 962.25 1.16 962.30 1.18 962.35 1.38 962.40 1.73 962.45 2.18 962.50 2.72 962.55 3.32 962.60 3.98 962.65 4.69 962.70 5.46 962.75 6.28 962.80 7.14 962.85 8.05 962.90 9.00 962.95 9.98 963.00 11.01 963.05 11.40 963.10 11.57 963.15 11.73 963.20 11.88 963.25 12.03 963.30 12.18 963.35 12.33 963.40 12.48 963.45 12.62 963.50 12.76 963.55 12.90 963.60 13.04 963.65 13.18 963.70 13.32 963.75 13.45 963.80 13.59 963.85 13.72 963.90 13.85 963.95 13.98 964.00 14.11 964.05 14.24 964.10 14.36 964.15 14.49 964.20 14.61 964.25 14.74 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 964.30 14.86 964.35 14.98 964.40 15.10 964.45 15.22 964.50 15.34 964.55 15.46 964.60 15.57 964.65 15.69 964.70 15.80 964.75 15.92 964.80 16.03 964.85 16.14 964.90 16.26 964.95 16.37 965.00 16.48 MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 56HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 13P: SE Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 956.50 439 0 956.60 529 48 956.70 620 106 956.80 710 172 956.90 801 248 957.00 891 333 957.10 982 426 957.20 1,072 529 957.30 1,162 641 957.40 1,253 761 957.50 1,343 891 957.60 1,434 1,030 957.70 1,524 1,178 957.80 1,615 1,335 957.90 1,705 1,501 958.00 1,796 1,676 958.10 1,886 1,860 958.20 1,976 2,053 958.30 2,067 2,255 958.40 2,157 2,466 958.50 2,248 2,687 958.60 2,338 2,916 958.70 2,429 3,154 958.80 2,519 3,402 958.90 2,609 3,658 959.00 2,700 3,924 959.10 2,790 4,198 959.20 2,881 4,482 959.30 2,971 4,774 959.40 3,062 5,076 959.50 3,152 5,387 959.60 3,612 5,725 959.70 4,072 6,109 959.80 4,532 6,539 959.90 4,992 7,015 960.00 5,452 7,538 960.10 5,912 8,106 960.20 6,372 8,720 960.30 6,832 9,380 960.40 7,292 10,086 960.50 7,752 10,839 960.60 7,877 11,620 960.70 8,002 12,414 960.80 8,127 13,220 960.90 8,252 14,039 961.00 8,378 14,871 961.10 8,503 15,715 961.20 8,628 16,571 961.30 8,753 17,440 961.40 8,878 18,322 961.50 9,003 19,216 961.60 9,128 20,123 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 961.70 9,253 21,042 961.80 9,379 21,973 961.90 9,504 22,917 962.00 9,629 23,874 962.10 9,754 24,843 962.20 9,879 25,825 962.30 10,004 26,819 962.40 10,129 27,826 962.50 10,254 28,845 962.60 10,380 29,877 962.70 10,505 30,921 962.80 10,630 31,978 962.90 10,755 33,047 963.00 10,880 34,129 963.10 11,065 35,226 963.20 11,250 36,341 963.30 11,434 37,476 963.40 11,619 38,628 963.50 11,804 39,800 963.60 11,913 40,985 963.70 12,022 42,182 963.80 12,131 43,390 963.90 12,240 44,608 964.00 12,349 45,838 964.10 12,349 45,838 964.20 12,349 45,838 964.30 12,349 45,838 964.40 12,349 45,838 964.50 12,349 45,838 964.60 12,349 45,838 964.70 12,349 45,838 964.80 12,349 45,838 964.90 12,349 45,838 965.00 12,349 45,838 MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 60HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 14P: SW Underground Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 957.50 0.00 957.55 0.00 957.60 0.00 957.65 0.00 957.70 0.00 957.75 0.00 957.80 0.00 957.85 0.00 957.90 0.00 957.95 0.00 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.01 958.10 0.03 958.15 0.07 958.20 0.11 958.25 0.17 958.30 0.23 958.35 0.30 958.40 0.36 958.45 0.43 958.50 0.47 958.55 0.52 958.60 0.56 958.65 0.60 958.70 0.63 958.75 0.67 958.80 0.70 958.85 0.73 958.90 0.76 958.95 0.79 959.00 0.82 959.05 0.85 959.10 0.87 959.15 0.90 959.20 0.92 959.25 0.95 959.30 0.97 959.35 0.99 959.40 1.01 959.45 1.04 959.50 1.06 959.55 1.08 959.60 1.10 959.65 1.12 959.70 1.14 959.75 1.16 959.80 1.18 959.85 1.20 959.90 1.22 959.95 1.27 960.00 1.34 960.05 1.42 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 960.10 1.52 960.15 1.63 960.20 1.76 960.25 1.89 960.30 2.04 960.35 2.19 960.40 2.35 960.45 2.51 960.50 2.67 960.55 2.83 960.60 2.97 960.65 3.10 960.70 3.21 960.75 3.32 960.80 3.43 960.85 3.53 960.90 3.63 960.95 3.72 961.00 3.82 961.05 3.91 961.10 3.99 961.15 4.08 961.20 4.16 961.25 4.24 961.30 4.32 961.35 4.40 961.40 4.47 961.45 4.55 961.50 4.62 961.55 4.88 961.60 5.28 961.65 5.78 961.70 6.36 961.75 7.01 961.80 7.72 961.85 8.49 961.90 9.31 961.95 10.17 962.00 11.08 962.05 12.03 962.10 13.02 962.15 14.05 962.20 15.12 962.25 15.92 962.30 16.03 962.35 16.14 962.40 16.26 962.45 16.37 962.50 16.48 962.55 16.59 962.60 16.70 962.65 16.80 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 962.70 16.91 962.75 17.02 962.80 17.12 962.85 17.23 962.90 17.33 962.95 17.44 963.00 17.54 963.05 17.64 963.10 17.75 963.15 17.85 963.20 17.95 963.25 18.05 963.30 18.15 963.35 18.25 963.40 18.35 963.45 18.45 963.50 18.54 MSE 24-hr 3 10-year Rainfall=4.17"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 61HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 14P: SW Underground Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 957.50 0 957.55 0 957.60 0 957.65 0 957.70 0 957.75 0 957.80 0 957.85 0 957.90 0 957.95 0 958.00 0 958.05 84 958.10 315 958.15 576 958.20 885 958.25 1,233 958.30 1,616 958.35 2,030 958.40 2,472 958.45 2,941 958.50 3,434 958.55 3,948 958.60 4,484 958.65 5,040 958.70 5,614 958.75 6,205 958.80 6,813 958.85 7,437 958.90 8,075 958.95 8,728 959.00 9,393 959.05 10,071 959.10 10,762 959.15 11,463 959.20 12,175 959.25 12,898 959.30 13,630 959.35 14,372 959.40 15,122 959.45 15,880 959.50 16,646 959.55 17,420 959.60 18,200 959.65 18,987 959.70 19,780 959.75 20,578 959.80 21,382 959.85 22,191 959.90 23,004 959.95 23,822 960.00 24,643 960.05 25,468 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 960.10 26,296 960.15 27,126 960.20 27,959 960.25 28,794 960.30 29,630 960.35 30,468 960.40 31,307 960.45 32,147 960.50 32,987 960.55 33,827 960.60 34,666 960.65 35,505 960.70 36,343 960.75 37,180 960.80 38,015 960.85 38,847 960.90 39,678 960.95 40,506 961.00 41,330 961.05 42,152 961.10 42,969 961.15 43,782 961.20 44,591 961.25 45,395 961.30 46,194 961.35 46,987 961.40 47,773 961.45 48,554 961.50 49,327 961.55 50,093 961.60 50,852 961.65 51,602 961.70 52,343 961.75 53,076 961.80 53,798 961.85 54,510 961.90 55,212 961.95 55,902 962.00 56,580 962.05 57,246 962.10 57,898 962.15 58,536 962.20 59,160 962.25 59,768 962.30 60,359 962.35 60,934 962.40 61,489 962.45 62,025 962.50 62,540 962.55 63,032 962.60 63,501 962.65 63,943 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 962.70 64,357 962.75 64,740 962.80 65,088 962.85 65,397 962.90 65,658 962.95 65,862 963.00 65,973 963.05 65,973 963.10 65,973 963.15 65,973 963.20 65,973 963.25 65,973 963.30 65,973 963.35 65,973 963.40 65,973 963.45 65,973 963.50 65,973 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 62HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=1.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7101 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=229,872 sf 94.79% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.94"Subcatchment 1S: West Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=97 Runoff=59.64 cfs 3.053 af Runoff Area=146,647 sf 87.81% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.82"Subcatchment 2S: SE Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=37.89 cfs 1.914 af Runoff Area=202,063 sf 89.14% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.82"Subcatchment 3S: NE Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=96 Runoff=52.21 cfs 2.637 af Runoff Area=105,254 sf 85.10% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.70"Subcatchment 4S: North Dealership Tc=5.0 min CN=95 Runoff=27.06 cfs 1.350 af Runoff Area=27,383 sf 43.27% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.89"Subcatchment 8S: NE D-D Tc=0.0 min CN=88 Runoff=7.16 cfs 0.308 af Runoff Area=486,108 sf 0.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.00"Subcatchment 9S: South Undev. Flow Length=959' Tc=27.6 min CN=89 Runoff=60.11 cfs 5.581 af Runoff Area=76,721 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.97"Subcatchment 10S: North Undev. Tc=5.0 min CN=80 Runoff=16.46 cfs 0.730 af Runoff Area=4,335 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.00"Subcatchment 15S: South D-D Tc=5.0 min CN=89 Runoff=1.06 cfs 0.050 af Inflow=51.48 cfs 5.023 afReach 5R: North Outflow=51.48 cfs 5.023 af Inflow=14.20 cfs 1.964 afReach 6R: SE Outflow=14.20 cfs 1.964 af Inflow=76.50 cfs 8.633 afReach 7R: SW Outflow=76.50 cfs 8.633 af Peak Elev=965.27' Storage=32,289 cf Inflow=27.06 cfs 1.350 afPond 11P: NW Pond Outflow=10.48 cfs 1.350 af Peak Elev=964.61' Storage=53,502 cf Inflow=52.21 cfs 2.637 afPond 12P: NE Pond Outflow=23.57 cfs 2.635 af Peak Elev=963.84' Storage=43,928 cf Inflow=37.89 cfs 1.914 afPond 13P: SE Pond Outflow=13.70 cfs 1.914 af Peak Elev=962.56' Storage=63,108 cf Inflow=59.64 cfs 3.053 afPond 14P: SW Underground Outflow=16.60 cfs 3.053 af Total Runoff Area = 29.348 ac Runoff Volume = 15.623 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.39" 50.78% Pervious = 14.904 ac 49.22% Impervious = 14.444 ac MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 76HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 11P: NW Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.00 960.60 0.00 960.65 0.00 960.70 0.00 960.75 0.00 960.80 0.00 960.85 0.00 960.90 0.00 960.95 0.00 961.00 0.00 961.05 0.00 961.10 0.00 961.15 0.00 961.20 0.00 961.25 0.00 961.30 0.00 961.35 0.00 961.40 0.00 961.45 0.00 961.50 0.00 961.55 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 961.60 0.00 961.65 0.00 961.70 0.00 961.75 0.00 961.80 0.00 961.85 0.00 961.90 0.00 961.95 0.00 962.00 0.00 962.05 0.00 962.10 0.00 962.15 0.00 962.20 0.00 962.25 0.00 962.30 0.00 962.35 0.00 962.40 0.00 962.45 0.00 962.50 0.00 962.55 0.00 962.60 0.00 962.65 0.00 962.70 0.00 962.75 0.00 962.80 0.00 962.85 0.00 962.90 0.00 962.95 0.00 963.00 0.00 963.05 0.01 963.10 0.03 963.15 0.07 963.20 0.11 963.25 0.17 963.30 0.23 963.35 0.30 963.40 0.36 963.45 0.43 963.50 0.47 963.55 0.52 963.60 0.56 963.65 0.60 963.70 0.63 963.75 0.67 963.80 0.70 963.85 0.73 963.90 0.76 963.95 0.79 964.00 0.82 964.05 1.03 964.10 1.39 964.15 1.85 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 964.20 2.39 964.25 2.99 964.30 3.66 964.35 4.38 964.40 5.16 964.45 5.98 964.50 6.85 964.55 7.61 964.60 7.84 964.65 8.07 964.70 8.29 964.75 8.51 964.80 8.72 964.85 8.92 964.90 9.12 964.95 9.32 965.00 9.51 965.05 9.70 965.10 9.89 965.15 10.07 965.20 10.25 965.25 10.42 965.30 10.59 965.35 10.76 965.40 10.93 965.45 11.09 965.50 11.26 965.55 11.42 965.60 11.57 965.65 11.73 965.70 11.88 965.75 12.03 965.80 12.18 965.85 12.33 965.90 12.48 965.95 12.62 966.00 12.76 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 77HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 11P: NW Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 959.00 747 0 959.10 835 79 959.20 922 167 959.30 1,010 264 959.40 1,098 369 959.50 1,185 483 959.60 1,273 606 959.70 1,360 738 959.80 1,448 878 959.90 1,536 1,027 960.00 1,623 1,185 960.10 1,711 1,352 960.20 1,799 1,527 960.30 1,886 1,712 960.40 1,974 1,905 960.50 2,062 2,106 960.60 2,149 2,317 960.70 2,237 2,536 960.80 2,324 2,764 960.90 2,412 3,001 961.00 2,500 3,247 961.10 2,587 3,501 961.20 2,675 3,764 961.30 2,763 4,036 961.40 2,850 4,317 961.50 2,938 4,606 961.60 3,025 4,904 961.70 3,113 5,211 961.80 3,201 5,527 961.90 3,288 5,851 962.00 3,376 6,185 962.10 3,737 6,540 962.20 4,099 6,932 962.30 4,460 7,360 962.40 4,822 7,824 962.50 5,183 8,324 962.60 5,544 8,861 962.70 5,906 9,433 962.80 6,267 10,042 962.90 6,629 10,687 963.00 6,990 11,368 963.10 7,187 12,076 963.20 7,385 12,805 963.30 7,582 13,553 963.40 7,780 14,321 963.50 7,977 15,109 963.60 8,175 15,917 963.70 8,372 16,744 963.80 8,569 17,591 963.90 8,767 18,458 964.00 8,964 19,345 964.10 9,162 20,251 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 964.20 9,359 21,177 964.30 9,557 22,123 964.40 9,754 23,088 964.50 9,952 24,074 964.60 10,149 25,079 964.70 10,346 26,103 964.80 10,544 27,148 964.90 10,741 28,212 965.00 10,939 29,296 965.10 11,136 30,400 965.20 11,334 31,523 965.30 11,531 32,667 965.40 11,728 33,830 965.50 11,926 35,012 965.60 12,123 36,215 965.70 12,321 37,437 965.80 12,518 38,679 965.90 12,716 39,941 966.00 12,913 41,222 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 80HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 12P: NE Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.00 958.10 0.00 958.15 0.00 958.20 0.00 958.25 0.00 958.30 0.00 958.35 0.00 958.40 0.00 958.45 0.00 958.50 0.00 958.55 0.00 958.60 0.00 958.65 0.00 958.70 0.00 958.75 0.00 958.80 0.00 958.85 0.00 958.90 0.00 958.95 0.00 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 960.60 0.00 960.65 0.00 960.70 0.00 960.75 0.00 960.80 0.00 960.85 0.00 960.90 0.00 960.95 0.00 961.00 0.00 961.05 0.00 961.10 0.00 961.15 0.00 961.20 0.00 961.25 0.00 961.30 0.00 961.35 0.00 961.40 0.00 961.45 0.00 961.50 0.00 961.55 0.01 961.60 0.03 961.65 0.07 961.70 0.11 961.75 0.17 961.80 0.23 961.85 0.30 961.90 0.36 961.95 0.43 962.00 0.47 962.05 0.52 962.10 0.56 962.15 0.60 962.20 0.63 962.25 0.67 962.30 0.70 962.35 0.73 962.40 0.76 962.45 0.79 962.50 0.82 962.55 0.85 962.60 0.87 962.65 0.90 962.70 0.92 962.75 0.95 962.80 0.97 962.85 0.99 962.90 1.01 962.95 1.04 963.00 1.06 963.05 1.26 963.10 1.62 963.15 2.07 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 963.20 2.60 963.25 3.20 963.30 3.87 963.35 4.59 963.40 5.36 963.45 6.18 963.50 7.04 963.55 7.95 963.60 8.90 963.65 9.88 963.70 10.91 963.75 11.97 963.80 13.07 963.85 14.20 963.90 15.37 963.95 16.56 964.00 17.79 964.05 19.05 964.10 20.34 964.15 20.90 964.20 21.20 964.25 21.51 964.30 21.80 964.35 22.10 964.40 22.39 964.45 22.68 964.50 22.96 964.55 23.24 964.60 23.52 964.65 23.79 964.70 24.06 964.75 24.33 964.80 24.59 964.85 24.85 964.90 25.11 964.95 25.37 965.00 25.62 965.05 25.87 965.10 26.12 965.15 26.37 965.20 26.61 965.25 26.85 965.30 27.09 965.35 27.33 965.40 27.57 965.45 27.80 965.50 28.03 965.55 28.26 965.60 28.49 965.65 28.71 965.70 28.94 965.75 29.16 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 965.80 29.38 965.85 29.60 965.90 29.82 965.95 30.03 966.00 30.25 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 81HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 12P: NE Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 958.00 756 0 958.10 879 82 958.20 1,003 176 958.30 1,126 282 958.40 1,249 401 958.50 1,373 532 958.60 1,496 676 958.70 1,619 831 958.80 1,743 999 958.90 1,866 1,180 959.00 1,989 1,373 959.10 2,113 1,578 959.20 2,236 1,795 959.30 2,359 2,025 959.40 2,482 2,267 959.50 2,606 2,521 959.60 2,729 2,788 959.70 2,852 3,067 959.80 2,976 3,359 959.90 3,099 3,662 960.00 3,222 3,978 960.10 3,346 4,307 960.20 3,469 4,648 960.30 3,592 5,001 960.40 3,716 5,366 960.50 3,839 5,744 960.60 4,375 6,154 960.70 4,911 6,619 960.80 5,447 7,137 960.90 5,983 7,708 961.00 6,520 8,333 961.10 7,056 9,012 961.20 7,592 9,744 961.30 8,128 10,530 961.40 8,664 11,370 961.50 9,200 12,263 961.60 9,447 13,196 961.70 9,695 14,153 961.80 9,942 15,135 961.90 10,190 16,141 962.00 10,437 17,173 962.10 10,685 18,229 962.20 10,932 19,310 962.30 11,180 20,415 962.40 11,427 21,545 962.50 11,675 22,701 962.60 11,922 23,880 962.70 12,170 25,085 962.80 12,417 26,314 962.90 12,665 27,568 963.00 12,912 28,847 963.10 13,211 30,153 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 963.20 13,509 31,489 963.30 13,808 32,855 963.40 14,106 34,251 963.50 14,405 35,676 963.60 14,703 37,132 963.70 15,002 38,617 963.80 15,301 40,132 963.90 15,599 41,677 964.00 15,898 43,252 964.10 16,196 44,857 964.20 16,495 46,491 964.30 16,793 48,156 964.40 17,092 49,850 964.50 17,391 51,574 964.60 17,689 53,328 964.70 17,988 55,112 964.80 18,286 56,926 964.90 18,585 58,769 965.00 18,883 60,643 965.10 19,182 62,546 965.20 19,480 64,479 965.30 19,779 66,442 965.40 20,078 68,435 965.50 20,376 70,457 965.60 20,675 72,510 965.70 20,973 74,592 965.80 21,272 76,705 965.90 21,570 78,847 966.00 21,869 81,019 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 84HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 13P: SE Pond Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 956.50 0.00 956.55 0.00 956.60 0.00 956.65 0.00 956.70 0.00 956.75 0.00 956.80 0.00 956.85 0.00 956.90 0.00 956.95 0.00 957.00 0.00 957.05 0.00 957.10 0.00 957.15 0.00 957.20 0.00 957.25 0.00 957.30 0.00 957.35 0.00 957.40 0.00 957.45 0.00 957.50 0.00 957.55 0.00 957.60 0.00 957.65 0.00 957.70 0.00 957.75 0.00 957.80 0.00 957.85 0.00 957.90 0.00 957.95 0.00 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.00 958.10 0.00 958.15 0.00 958.20 0.00 958.25 0.00 958.30 0.00 958.35 0.00 958.40 0.00 958.45 0.00 958.50 0.00 958.55 0.00 958.60 0.00 958.65 0.00 958.70 0.00 958.75 0.00 958.80 0.00 958.85 0.00 958.90 0.00 958.95 0.00 959.00 0.00 959.05 0.00 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 959.10 0.00 959.15 0.00 959.20 0.00 959.25 0.00 959.30 0.00 959.35 0.00 959.40 0.00 959.45 0.00 959.50 0.00 959.55 0.00 959.60 0.00 959.65 0.00 959.70 0.00 959.75 0.00 959.80 0.00 959.85 0.00 959.90 0.00 959.95 0.00 960.00 0.00 960.05 0.00 960.10 0.00 960.15 0.00 960.20 0.00 960.25 0.00 960.30 0.00 960.35 0.00 960.40 0.00 960.45 0.00 960.50 0.00 960.55 0.01 960.60 0.03 960.65 0.07 960.70 0.11 960.75 0.17 960.80 0.23 960.85 0.30 960.90 0.36 960.95 0.43 961.00 0.47 961.05 0.52 961.10 0.56 961.15 0.60 961.20 0.63 961.25 0.67 961.30 0.70 961.35 0.73 961.40 0.76 961.45 0.79 961.50 0.82 961.55 0.85 961.60 0.87 961.65 0.90 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 961.70 0.92 961.75 0.95 961.80 0.97 961.85 0.99 961.90 1.01 961.95 1.04 962.00 1.06 962.05 1.08 962.10 1.10 962.15 1.12 962.20 1.14 962.25 1.16 962.30 1.18 962.35 1.38 962.40 1.73 962.45 2.18 962.50 2.72 962.55 3.32 962.60 3.98 962.65 4.69 962.70 5.46 962.75 6.28 962.80 7.14 962.85 8.05 962.90 9.00 962.95 9.98 963.00 11.01 963.05 11.40 963.10 11.57 963.15 11.73 963.20 11.88 963.25 12.03 963.30 12.18 963.35 12.33 963.40 12.48 963.45 12.62 963.50 12.76 963.55 12.90 963.60 13.04 963.65 13.18 963.70 13.32 963.75 13.45 963.80 13.59 963.85 13.72 963.90 13.85 963.95 13.98 964.00 14.11 964.05 14.24 964.10 14.36 964.15 14.49 964.20 14.61 964.25 14.74 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 964.30 14.86 964.35 14.98 964.40 15.10 964.45 15.22 964.50 15.34 964.55 15.46 964.60 15.57 964.65 15.69 964.70 15.80 964.75 15.92 964.80 16.03 964.85 16.14 964.90 16.26 964.95 16.37 965.00 16.48 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 85HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 13P: SE Pond Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 956.50 439 0 956.60 529 48 956.70 620 106 956.80 710 172 956.90 801 248 957.00 891 333 957.10 982 426 957.20 1,072 529 957.30 1,162 641 957.40 1,253 761 957.50 1,343 891 957.60 1,434 1,030 957.70 1,524 1,178 957.80 1,615 1,335 957.90 1,705 1,501 958.00 1,796 1,676 958.10 1,886 1,860 958.20 1,976 2,053 958.30 2,067 2,255 958.40 2,157 2,466 958.50 2,248 2,687 958.60 2,338 2,916 958.70 2,429 3,154 958.80 2,519 3,402 958.90 2,609 3,658 959.00 2,700 3,924 959.10 2,790 4,198 959.20 2,881 4,482 959.30 2,971 4,774 959.40 3,062 5,076 959.50 3,152 5,387 959.60 3,612 5,725 959.70 4,072 6,109 959.80 4,532 6,539 959.90 4,992 7,015 960.00 5,452 7,538 960.10 5,912 8,106 960.20 6,372 8,720 960.30 6,832 9,380 960.40 7,292 10,086 960.50 7,752 10,839 960.60 7,877 11,620 960.70 8,002 12,414 960.80 8,127 13,220 960.90 8,252 14,039 961.00 8,378 14,871 961.10 8,503 15,715 961.20 8,628 16,571 961.30 8,753 17,440 961.40 8,878 18,322 961.50 9,003 19,216 961.60 9,128 20,123 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 961.70 9,253 21,042 961.80 9,379 21,973 961.90 9,504 22,917 962.00 9,629 23,874 962.10 9,754 24,843 962.20 9,879 25,825 962.30 10,004 26,819 962.40 10,129 27,826 962.50 10,254 28,845 962.60 10,380 29,877 962.70 10,505 30,921 962.80 10,630 31,978 962.90 10,755 33,047 963.00 10,880 34,129 963.10 11,065 35,226 963.20 11,250 36,341 963.30 11,434 37,476 963.40 11,619 38,628 963.50 11,804 39,800 963.60 11,913 40,985 963.70 12,022 42,182 963.80 12,131 43,390 963.90 12,240 44,608 964.00 12,349 45,838 964.10 12,349 45,838 964.20 12,349 45,838 964.30 12,349 45,838 964.40 12,349 45,838 964.50 12,349 45,838 964.60 12,349 45,838 964.70 12,349 45,838 964.80 12,349 45,838 964.90 12,349 45,838 965.00 12,349 45,838 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 89HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Pond 14P: SW Underground Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 957.50 0.00 957.55 0.00 957.60 0.00 957.65 0.00 957.70 0.00 957.75 0.00 957.80 0.00 957.85 0.00 957.90 0.00 957.95 0.00 958.00 0.00 958.05 0.01 958.10 0.03 958.15 0.07 958.20 0.11 958.25 0.17 958.30 0.23 958.35 0.30 958.40 0.36 958.45 0.43 958.50 0.47 958.55 0.52 958.60 0.56 958.65 0.60 958.70 0.63 958.75 0.67 958.80 0.70 958.85 0.73 958.90 0.76 958.95 0.79 959.00 0.82 959.05 0.85 959.10 0.87 959.15 0.90 959.20 0.92 959.25 0.95 959.30 0.97 959.35 0.99 959.40 1.01 959.45 1.04 959.50 1.06 959.55 1.08 959.60 1.10 959.65 1.12 959.70 1.14 959.75 1.16 959.80 1.18 959.85 1.20 959.90 1.22 959.95 1.27 960.00 1.34 960.05 1.42 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 960.10 1.52 960.15 1.63 960.20 1.76 960.25 1.89 960.30 2.04 960.35 2.19 960.40 2.35 960.45 2.51 960.50 2.67 960.55 2.83 960.60 2.97 960.65 3.10 960.70 3.21 960.75 3.32 960.80 3.43 960.85 3.53 960.90 3.63 960.95 3.72 961.00 3.82 961.05 3.91 961.10 3.99 961.15 4.08 961.20 4.16 961.25 4.24 961.30 4.32 961.35 4.40 961.40 4.47 961.45 4.55 961.50 4.62 961.55 4.88 961.60 5.28 961.65 5.78 961.70 6.36 961.75 7.01 961.80 7.72 961.85 8.49 961.90 9.31 961.95 10.17 962.00 11.08 962.05 12.03 962.10 13.02 962.15 14.05 962.20 15.12 962.25 15.92 962.30 16.03 962.35 16.14 962.40 16.26 962.45 16.37 962.50 16.48 962.55 16.59 962.60 16.70 962.65 16.80 Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 962.70 16.91 962.75 17.02 962.80 17.12 962.85 17.23 962.90 17.33 962.95 17.44 963.00 17.54 963.05 17.64 963.10 17.75 963.15 17.85 963.20 17.95 963.25 18.05 963.30 18.15 963.35 18.25 963.40 18.35 963.45 18.45 963.50 18.54 MSE 24-hr 3 100-year Rainfall=7.30"2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services Page 90HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 14P: SW Underground Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 957.50 0 957.55 0 957.60 0 957.65 0 957.70 0 957.75 0 957.80 0 957.85 0 957.90 0 957.95 0 958.00 0 958.05 84 958.10 315 958.15 576 958.20 885 958.25 1,233 958.30 1,616 958.35 2,030 958.40 2,472 958.45 2,941 958.50 3,434 958.55 3,948 958.60 4,484 958.65 5,040 958.70 5,614 958.75 6,205 958.80 6,813 958.85 7,437 958.90 8,075 958.95 8,728 959.00 9,393 959.05 10,071 959.10 10,762 959.15 11,463 959.20 12,175 959.25 12,898 959.30 13,630 959.35 14,372 959.40 15,122 959.45 15,880 959.50 16,646 959.55 17,420 959.60 18,200 959.65 18,987 959.70 19,780 959.75 20,578 959.80 21,382 959.85 22,191 959.90 23,004 959.95 23,822 960.00 24,643 960.05 25,468 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 960.10 26,296 960.15 27,126 960.20 27,959 960.25 28,794 960.30 29,630 960.35 30,468 960.40 31,307 960.45 32,147 960.50 32,987 960.55 33,827 960.60 34,666 960.65 35,505 960.70 36,343 960.75 37,180 960.80 38,015 960.85 38,847 960.90 39,678 960.95 40,506 961.00 41,330 961.05 42,152 961.10 42,969 961.15 43,782 961.20 44,591 961.25 45,395 961.30 46,194 961.35 46,987 961.40 47,773 961.45 48,554 961.50 49,327 961.55 50,093 961.60 50,852 961.65 51,602 961.70 52,343 961.75 53,076 961.80 53,798 961.85 54,510 961.90 55,212 961.95 55,902 962.00 56,580 962.05 57,246 962.10 57,898 962.15 58,536 962.20 59,160 962.25 59,768 962.30 60,359 962.35 60,934 962.40 61,489 962.45 62,025 962.50 62,540 962.55 63,032 962.60 63,501 962.65 63,943 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 962.70 64,357 962.75 64,740 962.80 65,088 962.85 65,397 962.90 65,658 962.95 65,862 963.00 65,973 963.05 65,973 963.10 65,973 963.15 65,973 963.20 65,973 963.25 65,973 963.30 65,973 963.35 65,973 963.40 65,973 963.45 65,973 963.50 65,973 Table of Contents2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Reports 1 Routing Diagram 2 Rainfall Events Listing 3 Area Listing (all nodes) 2-year Event 4 Node Listing 5 Subcat 1S: West Dealership 6 Subcat 2S: SE Dealership 7 Subcat 3S: NE Dealership 8 Subcat 4S: North Dealership 9 Subcat 8S: NE D-D 10 Subcat 9S: South Undev. 11 Subcat 10S: North Undev. 12 Subcat 15S: South D-D 13 Reach 5R: North 14 Reach 6R: SE 15 Reach 7R: SW 16 Pond 11P: NW Pond 20 Pond 12P: NE Pond 24 Pond 13P: SE Pond 28 Pond 14P: SW Underground 10-year Event 33 Node Listing 34 Subcat 1S: West Dealership 35 Subcat 2S: SE Dealership 36 Subcat 3S: NE Dealership 37 Subcat 4S: North Dealership 38 Subcat 8S: NE D-D 39 Subcat 9S: South Undev. 40 Subcat 10S: North Undev. 41 Subcat 15S: South D-D 42 Reach 5R: North 43 Reach 6R: SE 44 Reach 7R: SW 45 Pond 11P: NW Pond 49 Pond 12P: NE Pond 53 Pond 13P: SE Pond 57 Pond 14P: SW Underground 100-year Event 62 Node Listing 63 Subcat 1S: West Dealership 64 Subcat 2S: SE Dealership 65 Subcat 3S: NE Dealership Table of Contents2026-05-22 Propsoed HydroCAD Printed 9/10/2026Prepared by Landform Professional Services HydroCAD® 10.20-6a s/n 01713 © 2024 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 66 Subcat 4S: North Dealership 67 Subcat 8S: NE D-D 68 Subcat 9S: South Undev. 69 Subcat 10S: North Undev. 70 Subcat 15S: South D-D 71 Reach 5R: North 72 Reach 6R: SE 73 Reach 7R: SW 74 Pond 11P: NW Pond 78 Pond 12P: NE Pond 82 Pond 13P: SE Pond 86 Pond 14P: SW Underground Apple Ford, Gem Lake, MN GAG26002 Appendix D-1 APPENDIX D: OTHER PROPOSED HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS Apple Ford, Gem Lake, MN GAG26002 Appendix E APPENDIX E: STORM SEWER DRAINAGE MAP & CALCULATIONS Turning Performance Analysis Tandem Axel Pierce Aerial Ladder Parameters: Inside Cramp Angle: Axle Track: Wheel Offset: Tread Width: Chassis Overhang: Additional Bumper Depth: Front Overhang: Wheelbase: Calculated Turning Radii: Inside Turn: Curb to curb: Wall to wall: Comments: 45 82.92 in. 5.3 in. 17.4 in. 78 in. 7 in. 85 in. 256.5 in. 20 ft. 2 in. 36 ft. 7 in. 40 ft. 11 in. Note: Truck Length is 42' o Curb to Curb turning radius calculated for a 9.00 inch curb. Actual Inside Cramp Angle may be less due to highly specialized options. Notes: 1 Turning Performance Analysis Definitions: Inside Cramp Angle Axle Track Wheel Offset Tread Width Chassis Overhang Additional Bumper Depth Wheelbase Inside Turning Radius Curb to Curb Turning Radius Wall to Wall Turning Radius Maximum turning angle of the front inside tire. King-pin to King-pin distance of the front axle. Offset from the center-line of the wheel to the king-pin. Width of the tire tread. Distance of the center-line of the front axle to the front edge of the cab. This does not include the bumper depth. Depth that the bumper assembly adds to the front overhang. Distance between the center lines of the vehicle's front and rear axles. Radius of the smallest circle around which the vehicle can turn. Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the vehicle's tires can turn. This measurement assumes a curb height of 9 inches. Radius of the smallest circle inside of which the entire vehicle can turn. This measurement takes into account any front overhang due to chassis,bumper extensions and/or aerial devices. 2 Apple Ford White Bear Lake Traffic Study September 25, 2026 Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing conditions were reviewed within the study area to establish current traffic conditions to help determine impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions included collecting traffic volumes, observing transportation characteristics, and analyzing crash history and intersection capacity, which are described in the following sections. Traffic Volumes Vehicular intersection turning movement and pedestrian / bicyclist counts were collected at the following locations on Thursday, March 19, 2026. The data was generally collected from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., which coincides with the peak activity of the proposed development. • Highway 61 and Apple Ford Access (Employee Only) • Highway 61 and County Road E • County Road E and International Drive • County Road E and West Apple Ford Access / Commercial Access • County Road E and Central Apple Ford Access • County Road E and East Apple Ford Access Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were provided by MnDOT or estimated based on the data collected. Transportation Characteristics Observations were conducted within the study area to identify various transportation characteristics such as roadway geometry, traffic controls, speed limits, and multimodal facilities. A general overview of key roadways within the study area is as follows: • Highway 61 – a 4-lane minor arterial roadway with left- and right-turn lanes at key intersections and access locations. There are no multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk or trail) along the roadway and the speed limit is 50-mph. • County Road E – a 4-lane minor arterial roadway with periodic left- and / or right-turn lanes at key intersections and access locations. There are multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk or trail) along the south and north sides of the roadway to the west and east of Highway 61, respectively. The speed limit is 45-mph. All other study area roadways are local 2-lane facilities with 30-mph speed limits. The County Road E intersections with International Drive and Highway 61 are signalized, while all other study intersections have side-street stop control. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes are shown in Figure 2. Crash History Five (5) years of crash history was reviewed from 2021 through 2025 using MnDOT’s Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT), which identified a total of 84 intersection-related crashes in the study area. Four (4) crashes occurred at the Count Road E and International Drive intersection, one (1) crash at the County Road E and South Commercial Access intersection, and 79 crashes at the County Road E and Highway 61 intersection (including one pedestrian-related crash); there were no crashes at any of the existing Apple Ford driveways during the review period. Note that the number of crashes at the County Road E and Highway 61 intersection is significantly higher than locations with similar characteristics from a crash rate perspective (i.e., a critical index over 1.0); all other study intersections had crash and severity rates within the normal range. Further analysis of crashes is outside the scope of this study. Apple Ford White Bear Lake Traffic Study September 25, 2026 Page 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development, shown in Figure 3, is in the northwest quadrant of the Highway 61 and County Road E intersection. The project represents a modernization of the current Apple Ford facility, which totals about 88,580 square feet between several buildings. Once completed, the proposed development would be approximately 144,310 square feet, which is about 60% larger than the total current building area. As part of the project, a 1,115 square foot coffee shop is planned to be incorporated within the facility to serve dealership patrons as well as the general public. Access to the site will be provided in three (3) locations, with the current right-in only access along County Road E planned to be closed. The remaining driveways, that are currently in use, will continue to be utilized after reconstruction; the current Highway 61 access will no longer be restricted to employees-only. Construction was assumed to be completed by the year 2029. Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan TRAFFIC FORECASTS Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 no build and build conditions, which represents one year after opening. The traffic forecasts account for general background growth and trip generation from the proposed development. The following information summarizes the traffic forecast development process. Background Growth To account for general background growth in the study area, an annual growth rate of one-half (0.5) percent was applied to the existing traffic volumes to develop year 2030 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate was developed based on a combination of historical traffic volume patterns and traffic forecasts within the City of White Bear Lake Comprehensive Plan. Apple Ford White Bear Lake Traffic Study September 25, 2026 Page 11 CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are offered for consideration. 1) The number of crashes at the County Road E and Highway 61 intersection is significantly higher than locations with similar characteristics from a crash rate perspective (i.e., a critical index over 1.0); all other study intersections had crash and severity rates within the normal range. 2) All study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours; existing queues are generally maintained within the current roadway geometry except westbound queues along County Road E at Highway 61, which occasionally extend beyond the adjacent left- and right-turn lanes during the p.m. peak hour. 3) The proposed development is a 144,310 square foot auto dealership, which is about 60% larger than the total current building area. As part of the project, a 1,115 square foot coffee shop is planned to be incorporated within the facility to serve dealership patrons as well as the general public. 4) Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 no build and build conditions, which included a one- half (0.5) percent annual background growth and trip generation from the proposed development. a. The proposed development is estimated to generate 212 a.m. peak hour (126 in / 86 out), 177 p.m. peak hour (62 in / 115 out), and 2,400 daily (1,200 in / 1,200 out) trips. b. When compared to the existing dealership, the change in net new system trips associated with the proposed development is 64 a.m. peak hour (40 in / 24 out), 60 p.m. peak hour (20 in / 40 out), and 800 daily (400 in / 400 out) trips. 5) Key takeaways from the future year 2030 capacity analysis, include: a. All study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with and without the proposed development. b. Area queueing will remain relatively similar to the existing conditions; peak queues at the proposed site access locations are expected to range from two (2) to three (3) vehicles. c. No mitigation is needed to accommodate the proposed development from an intersection capacity perspective. 6) The following items are offered for consideration between area agencies and the project team. a. Consider a westbound right-turn lane along County Road E at the Central site access to minimize potential conflict between vehicles; preliminary review of this potential turn lane indicates significant utility conflicts and the resultant benefit of this turn lane does not appear to justify the cost of the utility relocation. b. Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. c. Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts. d. Preserve the ability to accommodate a future multimodal facility (i.e., sidewalk or trail) along the north side of County Road E within the project site limits. e. Implement minor signal timing adjustments at the Highway 61 and County Road E intersection to manage the existing westbound queuing noted earlier; note that the proposed development does not significantly impact these queues. Broadway Equipment Company 4701 Humboldt Ave N Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430 800-328-7434 RE: Broadway Automatic Car Wash Water Usage on Fresh Water with Spot Free Rinse The Broadway automatic car wash system uses approximately 36 gallons per car to wash a vehicle (1.5 minute cycle with 24 gpm demand). The car is rinsed with approximately 6 gallons of city water, followed up by a RO Rinse that also uses 6 gallons. TOTAL WATER USAGE City Water Car Wash 36 gpc City Water Rinse 6 gpc Spot Free Water Rinse 6 gpc Spot Free Reject Water 6 gpc TOTAL USAGE PER CAR 54 gpc Total fresh water usage per car is 54 gallons. The average car wash cycle is approximately 2 minutes long. September 16, 2026 Dear Resident, The City of Gem Lake, Minnesota, Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 2026 at 7:00 pm. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following applications submitted by Bryan M. Hansen and Chris Gulbrandson of Apple Auto and WBL Auto Real Estate, LLC, applicant and owner, for a Zoning Text Amendment, Minor Subdivision to consolidate property at 3651 Highway 61 (PID: 273022340010), 1491 County Road E E (PID: 273022340009) and 1485 County Road E E (PID: 273022340006) into one parcel for the new Apple Auto Dealership and a separate vacant parcel. The Zoning Text Amendment would add language to Building Type 15a, Automotive Dealership, under Modifications/Exclusions, to exempt Auto Dealerships from the Tree Preservation/Reforestation standards. As part of the Minor Subdivision, a portion of 0 County Road E E (PID: 273022340007) is proposed to be added to the singular parcel for the Apple Auto Dealership. A Zoning Compliance Certificate to allow the redevelopment of the Apple Auto Dealership in the Gateway Zoning District for a new auto dealership. The City’s Consolidated Land Use Ordinance requires a public hearing for all Ordinance Amendment applications. The Zoning Compliance Certificate and Minor Subdivision are included as part of the request. You are being notified of this hearing because your property is within 350 feet of the applicants’ property, 3651 Highway 61 (PID: 273022340010), 1491 County Road E E (PID: 273022340009), 1485 County Road E E (PID: 273022340006), or 0 County Road E E (PID: 273022340007). You may attend the public hearing if you wish to provide comments or ask questions about the proposed request. The meeting will be held at Heritage Hall (4200 Otter Lake Road). You may also submit comments in writing (by letter or email) to Barbara Suciu, City Clerk, at 4200 Otter Lake Road, Gem Lake, MN 55110 or barbara.suciu@gemlakemn.org prior to noon on the day of the meeting. The Clerk will provide all comments received to the Planning Commission. A copy of the staff report and application materials will be available for review prior to the meeting. The meeting materials will be placed on the City of Gem Lake website (https://gemlakemn.org/). Sincerely, Andrew Boucher - Gem Lake City Planner cc: Barbara Suciu, Administrative Assistant Mike Johnson, Building Inspector CJ Sycks, Gem Lake City Planner CITY OF GEM LAKE RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND ZONING COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE September 17, 2026 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of Gem Lake, Ramsey County, Minnesota shall consider applications from Bryan M. Hansen and Chris Gulbrandson of Apple Auto and WBL Auto Real Estate, LLC, applicant and owner, for a Zoning Text Amendment and Minor Subdivision to consolidate property at 3651 Highway 61 (PID: 273022340010), 1491 County Road E E (PID: 273022340009) and 1485 County Road E E (PID: 273022340006) into one parcel for the new Apple Auto Dealership and a separate vacant parcel. The Zoning Text Amendment would add language to Section 9, Building Type 15a, Automotive Dealership, under Modifications/Exclusions, to exempt Auto Dealerships from the Tree Preservation/Reforestation standards. As part of the Minor Subdivision, a portion of 0 County Road E E (PID: 273022340007) is proposed to be added to the singular parcel for the Apple Auto Dealership. A Zoning Compliance Certificate to allow the redevelopment of the Apple Auto Dealership in the Gateway Zoning District for a new auto dealership. The hearing will take place at the Planning Commission meeting on October 6, 2026, at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Gem Lake City Hall (4200 Otter Lake Road). A copy of the application, legal descriptions, and staff report will be available from the City Clerk approximately one week prior to the hearing. Gretchen Artig-Swomley, Mayor Published one time in the White Bear Press on September 23, 2026. Resolution No.: ______________ Page 2 of 3 4. Public Safety and Health. This criterion is met. The proposed accessory structure is not anticipated to negatively impact public safety or health. 5. Area Aesthetics. This criterion is met. The building materials, roof form, siding, windows, doors, gutters, and exterior lighting were chosen to complement the existing residence. Exterior materials and detailing include hand-split cedar shake roofing, cedar siding, copper gutters and downspouts, copper coach lighting, residential-style windows with simulated divided lights, and residential-style overhead doors maintain the architectural character and quality of the property instead of appearing as a utilitarian outbuilding. 6. Economic Impact on the Entire Area. This criterion is met. The proposed application represents a financial investment in the property and is designed to complement the residential property. 7. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the existing land use as Single-Family Residential, and the Future Land Use guides the property for Single- Family Residential Executive. 8. Anticipated Duration of the Conditional or Interim Use This criterion is met. There is no anticipated dissolution of the Conditional Use. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The applicant is permitted to construct the accessory structure onto the site, consistent with the plans received by the City on September 21, 2026. 2. All plans must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for SAC review prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary local permits prior to construction. 4. The applicant shall adhere to all other applicable local, state, and federal requirements. 5. The applicant shall pay all fees and escrows associated with this request. Adopted by the City Council of Gem Lake, Ramsey County, Minnesota, on this 20th day of October 2026. ATTEST I, Barbara Suciu, the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Gem Lake, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate representation of action taken by the City Council of the City of Gem Lake on the date first written. ______________________________ Barbara Suciu, City Clerk Resolution No.: ______________ Page 3 of 3 Attachment A: (Per Warranty Deed Doc. No. 3335068 dated May 30, 2000) Part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, Township 30, Range 22, described as follows: Commencing at a point on South line of said Section (bearing E. & W.) distant 935 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof, thence North at right angles to said South line a distance of 886 feet to a point, thence North 26 degrees 20 minutes East a distance of 210.5 feet to a point, thence South 72 degrees 03 minutes East a distance of 52 feet to a point, thence North 68 degrees 31 minutes East a distance of 85 feet to a point, thence North 50 degrees 50 minutes East a distance of 90 feet to a point, thence North 20 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 119.2 feet to a point, thence North 3 degrees 02 minutes East a distance of 129.15 feet to a point, thence S. 86 degrees 58 minutes East a distance of 40 feet to the point of beginning of land to be described, thence North 3 degrees 02 minutes East a distance of 176 feet to a point, thence South 87 degrees 52 minutes East a distance of 471 feet to a point, thence South 4 degrees 12 minutes East a distance of 395.2 feet to a point, thence South 87 degrees 18 minutes West a distance of 565.04 feet more or less to the Easterly line of roadway easement hereinafter described, thence North 20 degrees 47 minutes East on said Easterly line a distance of 136.18 feet to a point, thence North 3 degrees 02 minutes East on said Easterly line a distance of 135.4 feet more or less to point of beginning. Together with the right to ingress and egress over and across a strip of land 40 feet in width in said Southwest 1/4 of said Sec. 27, with the Southerly end thereof being the North line of County Road "E" and the Northerly end thereof being the course afore-described as running South 86 degrees 58 minutes East a distance of 40 feet and lying adjacent to and on the right sides of aforedescribed courses running from said South line of said Section 27 to the Northerly end of the course described as running North 3 degrees 02 minutes East a distance of 129.15 feet, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110-5196 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Andrew Boucher, Community Planner FROM: Justin Gese, PE City Engineer Dustin Cesafsky, Engineering Specialist Emily Jennings, PE Water Resources Engineer DATE: August 25, 2026 RE: Apple Ford White Bear Lake – Development Submittal 8/10/26 Review Comments SEH No. GEMLK 171858 14.00 Below are our initial review comments for the Apple Ford Development information that was submitted on 8/10/26. If you have any further questions, please arrange a follow-up meeting with the City, the Developer, and their engineer to address any questions you have pertaining to the comments. Submittal Comments: General Site comments 1. Provide water service connection after the hydrant tee near County Rd. E with 10”x8” reducer. Install a new gate valve near the right of way. 2. Call out tip out curb throughout grading plan. 3. Provide paving section information throughout the site along with GE values. 4. Provide review acceptance letter from MnDOT, Ramsey County, Vadnais Heights, Fire Department, and MN Dept. of Health. Stormwater comments 5. Coverage under the MPCA’s Construction Stormwater (CSW) General Permit must be obtained prior to any land disturbing activities. 6. Provide documentation from Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District that the project is not within their jurisdiction given that that the project is located right on the boundary and some drainage appears to flow south, outside of the VLAWMO area. 7. Prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and SWPPP Consistent with the MPCA’s CSW Permit and Gem Lake City Code Section 22 8. Include tabulated data in the Stormwater Plan identifying the following (in acres): a. Disturbed Area b. New Impervious Area c. Fully Reconstructed Impervious Area d. Required Water Quality Volume 9. Ensure all pipes have adequate capacity for 10-year runoff. 10. Describe pre-treatment. Note that per Gem Lake City Code Section 22.2.3.6 all permanent stormwater management facilities with discharge points to wetlands must include pre-treatment. 11. Describe energy dissipation at outfalls to ponding areas and discharge points. 12. HydroCAD reports and Pond Design Worksheet have inconsistent drainage areas. Revise as appropriate. August 25, 2026 Page 2 13. Provide additional narrative, plan information, and details on the underground stormwater chamber system. The stormwater plan refers to this as ‘underground detention basin with filtration’. As presently shown, it does not appear to meet the minimum depth requirements for detention as listed in the CSW Permit and it is unclear why the Pond Design Worksheet does not show the discharge rate for water quality volume. The ‘underground ponding system’ detail does not seem to support filtration through the entire section. 14. Submit information consistent with the requirements of per Gem Lake City Code Section 22.2.5. 15. Submit entire WCA Notice of Decision (including attachments) so compliance can be verified. Attachments: City of Vadnais Heights_Apple Ford Review Memo_08.07.26 - Fire Apparatus Turning Details MnDOT Review S25-047 Apple Auto Group 1-12-26 DJC X:\FJ\G\GEMLK\Common\2026 Apple Ford Dev\Apple Ford SEH Review Memo_8-28-26.docx Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, Minnesota 55110-5196 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Andrew Boucher, Community Planner FROM: Justin Gese, PE City Engineer Dustin Cesafsky, Engineering Specialist Emily Jennings, PE Water Resources Engineer DATE: September 25, 2026 RE: Apple Ford White Bear Lake – Development Submittal 9/17/26 Review Comments SEH No. GEMLK 171858 14.00 Below are our initial review comments for the Apple Ford Development information that were submitted on 8/10/2026 and again on 9/17/26. If you have any further questions, please arrange a follow-up meeting with the City, the Developer, and their engineer to address any questions you have pertaining to the comments. Submittal Comments: General Site comments 1. Provide water service connection after the hydrant tee near County Rd. E with 10”x8” reducer. Install a new gate valve near the right of way. 2. Call out tip out curb throughout grading plan. 3. Provide paving section information throughout the site along with GE values. 4. Provide review acceptance letter from MnDOT, Ramsey County, Vadnais Heights, Fire Department, and MN Dept. of Health. Stormwater comments 5. Coverage under the MPCA’s Construction Stormwater (CSW) General Permit must be obtained prior to any land disturbing activities. Comment will remain until coverage is obtained. 6. Provide documentation from Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District that the project is not within their jurisdiction given that that the project is located right on the boundary and some drainage appears to flow south, outside of the VLAWMO area. 7. Prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and SWPPP Consistent with the MPCA’s CSW Permit and Gem Lake City Code Section 22 8. Include tabulated data in the Stormwater Plan identifying the following (in acres): a. Disturbed Area b. New Impervious Area c. Fully Reconstructed Impervious Area d. Required Water Quality Volume 9. Ensure all pipes have adequate capacity for 10-year runoff. This includes pipes directly connected to storm from roof drains (RD C and RD D). 10. Describe pre-treatment. Note that per Gem Lake City Code Section 22.2.3.6 all permanent stormwater management facilities with discharge points to wetlands must include pre treatment. 11. Describe energy dissipation at outfalls to ponding areas and discharge points. Include riprap class. September 25, 2026 Page 2 12. HydroCAD reports and Pond Design Worksheet have inconsistent drainage areas. Revise as appropriate. 13. Provide additional narrative, plan information, and details on the underground stormwater chamber system. The stormwater plan refers to this as ‘underground detention basin with filtration’. As presently shown, it does not appear to meet the minimum depth requirements for detention as listed in the CSW Permit and it is unclear why the Pond Design Worksheet does not show the discharge rate for water quality volume. The ‘underground ponding system’ detail does not seem to support filtration through the entire section. Provide additional narrative, plan information, and details on the underground stormwater chamber system. There is not sufficient information in the plans to verify the configuration, routing, or treatment quantity. The system should include access for adequate inspection and maintenance. 14. Submit information consistent with the requirements of per Gem Lake City Code Section 22.2.5. The owner will be responsible for the long-term maintenance and operation. Update SWPPP accordingly. Prepare a draft O&M agreement consistent with Gem Lake Ordinance No. 131, Section 22.2.5 for review and approval. Note to include sump structures within the O&M Plan. 15. Submit entire WCA Notice of Decision (including attachments) so compliance can be verified. Clarify if the wetland permitting included the temporary impact of having SF in the wetland? (Wetland 7) 16. Update estimated quantities or otherwise indicate locations of temporary stabilization. Note that MnDOT Type 3N blanket is superseded by new REPP categories. 17. Clarify if the wetland permitting included the temporary impact of having SF in the wetland? (Wetland 7) 18. Provide plan information and details for all outlet control structures. Include sufficient information to verify compatibility with how weirs are modelled in HydroCAD vs shown on plans. 19. Provide additional narrative, plan information, and details on the Manufactured Treatment Device. It is not clear how water is routed in and out of the device. 20. Provide additional narrative, plan information, and details on the underground stormwater chamber system. There is not sufficient information in the plans to verify the configuration, routing, or treatment quantity. The system should include access for adequate inspection and maintenance. Attachments: City of Vadnais Heights_Apple Ford Review Memo_08.07.26 - Fire Apparatus Turning Details MnDOT Review S25-047 Apple Auto Group 1-12-26 DJC X:\FJ\G\GEMLK\Common\2026 Apple Ford Dev\Apple Ford SEH Review Memo_9-21-26.docx Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 An equal opportunity employer MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 January 12, 2026 Andrew Boucher Community Planner TKDA 3311 East Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55425 Nate Herbst H&R Construction Company 307 East 39th Street South Sioux City, NE 68776 SUBJECT: MnDOT Review # S25-047 Apple Auto Group NW Quad I-94/I-694 & US 169 Jem Lake, Ramsey County Dear Messrs. Boucher and Herbst: Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans for Apple Auto Group. MnDOT has reviewed the documents and has the following comments: Access: MnDOT warrants for a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be met with the proposed expansion of the Apple Auto Group facility. It is recommended that the city require the TIS. The TIS should analyze the impacts of converting the current employee restricted access to US 61 to an unrestricted public access. More detailed information may be obtained at: Resources - Access Management - MnDOT. Chapter 8 gives guidance on the TIS process. If you have any further questions, please contact Tod Sherman, Planning Director, at tod.sherman@state.mn.us. Right-of-Way (ROW): The site layout needs to clearly show the MnDOT ROW limits and access control. Please coordinate with MnDOT Surveys (Keith Jakober, 651-775-0970 or keith.jakober@state.mn.us) to obtain line work along US 61. (see illustration below). MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 Questions regarding this comment should be addressed to Chinou Vue, 651-234-7570 or chinou.vue@state.mn.us. Permits: MnDOT will require an access permit for work on access to US 61. Additionally, any other use of, or work within or affecting, MnDOT right of way will require a permit. Permits can be applied for at this site: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. Please upload a copy of this letter when applying for any permits. Please direct any permit questions to Jeff Dierberger, Metro Permits at 651-775-0404 or Jeffrey.dierberger@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 MB (megabytes) per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each email. 2. Files over 20 MB can also be uploaded to MnDOT’s Web Transfer Client site: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us, and staff will create a shared folder in which files can be uploaded. Please send an accompanying email with a narrative for the development. MnDOT Metropolitan District, Waters Edge Building, 1500 County Road B2 West, Roseville, MN 55113 If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 234-7797 or Cameron.muhic@state.mn.us. Cordially, Cameron Muhic Principal Planner Copy sent via E-Mail: Jeff Dierberger, Permits Heather Gardner, Design Jason Swenson, Water Resources Rabi Pariyar, Traffic Keith Jakober, Surveys Matthew Parent, Area Engineer Chinou Vue, Right-of-Way Michael Kowski, Maintenance Molly McCormick, Multimodal Amrish Patel, Transit Joe Widing, Metropolitan Council Nolan W. Wall, AICP The City of Vadnais Heights Planning/Community Development Director 800 East County Road E Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 651.204.6027 Phone 651.204.6100 Fax nolan.wall@cityvadnaisheights.com Apple Ford Project – City of Vadnais Heights Comments Page 1 Memorandum: TO: City of Gem Lake FROM: Nolan Wall, Planning/Community Development Director DATE: August 7, 2026 SUBJECT: Apple Ford Project Public Utility Comments City staff have reviewed the preliminary plans and have the following comments to be incorporated into the City of Gem Lake’s conditions of approval for this project: 1. The City of Vadnais Heights requires plumbing permits and inspections for the proposed public water connection. 2. Ramsey County may require right-of-way permits, and copies must be submitted with the plumbing permit applications. 3. Public water connections must include separate meters for billing purposes. These connections may include separate metering for domestic, irrigation, fire protection and car wash uses. 4. Because of the ongoing White Bear Lake water level litigation, the proposed car wash facility must include a water-recycling system. Please provide details on the recycling rate for further review and comment. 5. Final plans should include the required DIP reducer and DIP sleeve at the planned connection to the City’s watermain. 6. Please submit any revised plans prepared for final approval so the City of Vadnais Heights can review and comment on them. cc/ec: Jim Hauth, Public Works Direction (jim.hauth@cityvadnaisheights.com) Scott Haupt, Consulting City Engineer (shaupt@sehinc.com) Nick Ousky, Senior Engineering Technician (nick.ousky@cityvadnaisheights.com) Attachments: Record plans Standard watermain specifications September 15, 2026 Andrew Boucher, Planner City of Gem Lake Planning Commission Re: Apple Ford Redevelopment Request — Neighborhood Concerns and Conditional Support Dear Mr. Boucher: On behalf of the Daniels Farm Road Owners Association, we are writing regarding the proposed expansion and redevelopment of the Apple Ford dealership. We recognize the importance of responsible economic development and would like to see the project succeed. At the same time, the proposed expansion would significantly affect the neighborhoods west, northwest, and north of the dealership. Our primary concern is the removal of hundreds of mature trees, many of which are more than 80 years old. These trees provide an important natural buffer – visual and acoustic - between the existing dealership, Highway 61, County Road E, and nearby homes. They help preserve the peace, privacy, and character of Daniels Farm Road. We respectfully request that the City and Apple Ford ensure that the project complies with the City’s tree ordinance. For trees that cannot be preserved, Apple Ford should either provide the replacement required by the ordinance or propose a reasonable alternative that achieves the same objective of preserving and mitigating the value of the ex isting trees. Any alternative should be clearly defined, enforceable, and subject to City approval before the project proceeds. We are also deeply concerned about the future of the field west of the dealership. This field currently provides a natural barrier and contributes to the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. Although we understand that the property may be zoned for p otential development, we respectfully ask that the field, wetland areas, and watershed functions be preserved in as natural a condition as possible. We do not support unnecessary clearing, aggressive removal of understory or fallen trees, or the use of goats as a vegetation-management method. If feasible, we encourage consideration of a conservation easement or land-trust arrangement for these natural areas. The lilacs lining both sides of Daniels Farm Road are a valued and distinctive part of the neighborhood’s character. Residents have invested thousands of dollars over several years maintaining them, despite not owning the plantings. It is important to the neighborhood that these lilacs remain preserved. We respectfully request that their preservation be addressed specifically in any future ownership, conservation, or land -use arrang ement affecting the field and surrounding property. If ownership must change as part of the transaction, the Association would welcome the opportunity to explore assuming ownership or stewardship, subject to legal and financial feasibility. Finally, the project should include effective protections against noise and light pollution. These should include substantial screening along the north and west sides, a well - designed wall or fence to block headlights, downward -facing and shielded lighting , automatic dimming or shutoff during overnight hours, and reasonable controls on construction and operating noise. We are willing to work constructively with the City and Apple Ford and would support the project if these concerns are addressed through specific, enforceable conditions. We respectfully ask that the application not be approved as currently proposed until tree preservation, natural-area protection, lilac preservation, screening, lighting, and noise mitigation have been resolved. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Daniels Farm Road Owners Association cc: Gem Lake City Council Members 1 Andrew Boucher From:Alan Bergstrom <abergstrom548@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 21, 2026 2:14 PM To:Andrew Boucher Subject:Apple Ford Redevelopment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of TKDA. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Andrew, Sorry for the error, I hit the wrong buƩon and sent too soon. We live at 17 Daniels Farm Road, Gem Lake, MN and are wriƟng in support of the leƩer you received from the Daniels Farm Road home associaƟon. Thank you, Alan and Beverly Bergstrom 17 Daniels Farm Road Gem Lake, MN 55110 Sent from my iPad 2 automatic dimming or shutoff during overnight hours, and reasonable controls on construction/operating noise. Let me know if you have any questions. Again, if you could include an address for either the Daniels Farm Road Owners Association or the individual owners, then I will make sure the developer’s team are aware of these concerns and considerations. Thanks, Andrew Andrew Boucher, AICP, ENV SP Planner P 651.292.4545 | C 651.295.2267 E andrew.boucher@tkda.com 3311 E Old Shakopee Rd, Suite 300, Bloomington, MN 55425 <image001.png> <image002.png> <DFROA Letter Regarding Apple Ford Redevelopment Request - Comments & Concerns (09.15.2026).pdf> 2 3 2 Let me know if you have any questions. Again, if you could include an address for either the Daniels Farm Road Owners Association or the individual owners, then I will make sure the developer’s team are aware of these concerns and considerations. Thanks, Andrew Andrew Boucher, AICP, ENV SP Planner P 651.292.4545 | C 651.295.2267 E andrew.boucher@tkda.com 3311 E Old Shakopee Rd, Suite 300, Bloomington, MN 55425 September 28, 2026 Mr. Andrew Boucher – Gem Lake City Planner 4200 Gem Lake Road Gem Lake, MN 55110 Dear Mr. Boucher: My name is John Kuduk and my wife and I reside in the Gem Lake Villas at 43 Summit Farm Lane, Gem Lake, MN 55110. I’m writing today to share my concerns and opposition to Apple Ford plan to purchase the current farm plot land. Apple Ford is seeking to secure a Zoning Compliance Certificate to build their new redeveloped facility in the Gateway Zoning District. The dealership owner isn't just asking for a simple variance; they are asking to change the actual written rules of what is allowed in that zone. The problem is the car dealership is moving too far west from the Business Hwy 61. The major car dealership new west boundary would expand 1/3 of a mile away from Hwy 61. Substantially away from the business views and zoning of Hwy 61. It would be bordering a residential neighborhood which completely undermines the quiet, semi-rural, and residential charm that Gem Lake is historically known for. The possible negatives for our residential community include the following: • Light Pollution: Dealerships require massive, bright parking lot lights that stay on all night for security. This would shine directly into your villas. • Traffic and Safety: Dealerships bring heavy vehicle traffic, including massive car -carrier delivery trucks that can block local roads and endanger residents. • Noise Pollution: Loudspeaker pages, mechanics working. • Environmental/Visual Aesthetics. Thank you for this opportunity to voice my concerns. Sincerely, John Kuduk 651-271-6373 September 25, 2026 Dear Planning Commission Members, I am a resident of the Villas of Gem Lake and am writing to share my thoughts regarding Apple Auto’s proposed expansion onto the land along County Road E, directly adjacent to our neighborhood. While I am not necessarily opposed to the proposal, I believe residents would benefit from more information about the scope of the project and what alternatives have been considered for the property, including potential uses by the City of Gem Lake. One of my primary questions is how the proposed expansion would benefit the city and its residents. Property taxes in Gem Lake are significant, and I would appreciate an analysis comparing the potential tax revenue from an expanded Apple Auto dealership with what could be generated by a residential development similar to the Villas of Gem Lake. Understanding the projected tax impact of each option would help residents better evaluate the proposal. I also wonder if there may be opportunities to expand the existing trail and prairie areas if the property were developed residentially. A similar housing development could potentially allow the trail system to extend northward and provide additional recreational opportunities for Gem Lake residents. Another concern is light pollution. Our neighborhood already receives significant lighting from Highway 61, and adding a vehicle dealership and associated lighting closer to our homes could further affect the area. I would therefore appreciate more detail regarding the proposed dealership’s size, layout, operating hours, lighting plan, and other potential impacts on nearby residents. I would appreciate the Planning Commission’s consideration of these questions and would welcome additional information about the proposal, the alternatives that have been evaluated, and the anticipated benefits and impacts to the City of Gem Lake and surrounding residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sue Hicks Resident, Villas of Gem Lake 2  Lilacs lining both sides of Daniels Farm Road be preserved and maintained. The Association would welcome the opportunity to assume ownership or stewardship of these areas.  Protections against noise and light pollution with screening along the north and west sides to block headlights, downward-facing and shielded lighting with automatic dimming or shutoff during overnight hours, and reasonable controls on construction/operating noise. Let me know if you have any questions. Again, if you could include an address for either the Daniels Farm Road Owners Association or the individual owners, then I will make sure the developer’s team are aware of these concerns and considerations. Thanks, Andrew Andrew Boucher, AICP, ENV SP Planner P 651.292.4545 | C 651.295.2267 E andrew.boucher@tkda.com 3311 E Old Shakopee Rd, Suite 300, Bloomington, MN 55425 10/12/2026 1 City of Gem Lake October 6, 2026 Planning Commission M eeting Planning Case: 2026-003 and 2026-004 WBL Auto Real Estate, LLC Planning Commission M eeting –October 6, 2026 City Council M eeting –October 20, 2026 Applicant –Chris Gulbrandson, Apple Autos Requesting a Zoning Text Amendment, Minor Subdivision and Zoning Compliance Certificate for properties at 0, 1485, and 1491 County Road E; 3651 Highway 61 1 2 10/12/2026 2 Developm ent Location: 0, 1485, and 1491 County Road E; 3651 Highway 61 N Da n i e l s F a r m R o a d County Road E East Parcel 4 Parcel 3 Parcel 2 Parcel 1 Zoning Text Amendment, Minor Subdivision and Zoning Compliance Certificate •Chris Gulbrandson, President at Apple Autos, requests a Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot line for Parcel 4 and combine that portion of Parcel 4 with commonly owned Parcel 2 and 3 into two parcels. •One 22.94-acre lot for the redevelopment of the Apple Ford White Bear Lake Dealership and one 10.65 lot that will remain vacant at this time. •WBL Auto Real Estate, LLC will consolidate the new dealership parcel with the existing 3651 Highway 61 parcel at a future date as a condition of approval. •In addition to a subdivision, all redevelopment in the Gateway District requires a zoning compliance permit per Ordinance No. 131, Section 9. Gateway (2.2.2). •The applicant submitted a Zoning Text Amendment application to amend the Building Use Type 15a for Automotive Dealerships, adding a Modification/Exclusion (18) with language to allow exemption of Automotive Dealerships from the Tree Preservation/Reforestation standards where strict compliance with the ordinance standards would prohibit reasonable development or redevelopment of the property. •Applications require consideration by the Planning Commission in a public hearing and by City Council for final approval. 3 4 10/12/2026 3 Communications •Application deemed complete on August 10, 2026 for the Minor Subdivision and Zoning Compliance Permit. The Zoning Text Amendment on September 16, 2026. •Public Notice to neighborhood within 350 feet of the property mailed to property owners in the project area on August 13 and September 16, 2026. •Public Notice to newspaper published in White Bear Press on August 19 and September 22, 2026. •Application review was extended to December 8, 2026 to complete the necessary reviews. Communications (continued) •January 12, 2026, MnDOT provided initial review comments: •MnDOT and the City require a Traffic Impact Study to analyze the impacts of converting the current employee restricted access to US 61 to an unrestricted public access. •MnDOT provided a formal letter on October 6, 2026 with no comments except for requiring drainage and road right-of-way permits. •September 25, 2026, SEH (City Engineer) provided a memo addressing general site and specific stormwater comments still to be addressed included in the packet. •Ramsey County provided initial comments on the maintenance and permitting with final comments sent on October 12, 2026. •City of Vadnais Heights provided comments and requests revised plans be submitted for final approval to review and comment. •Other item that should be discussed is the applicant’s tree preservation plan which in the current configuration does not meeting the requirements of Ord. 131. 5 6 10/12/2026 4 Communications (continued) •Comments were received from the following residents: •Debra Suhadolnik: 46 Summit Farm Lane •John Kuduk: 43 Summit Farm Lane •Sue Hicks: 29 Summit Farm Lane •The Daniels Farm Road Owners Association: •Alan and Beverly Bergstrom: 17 Daniels Farm Road •Anthony Scornavacco and Michael Garrett: 7 Daniels Farm Road •John L. Kuny: 9 Daniels Farm Road •Sherri and Ben Johnson: 11 Daniels Farm Road •Stephanie Farrell: 21 Daniels Farm Road •Tom and Laura Rasmussen: 3 Daniels Farm Road •Beth and Jim Tschidi: 5 Daniels Farm Road •Additional comments were provided from Beth and Jim Tschidi which are included in the packet. •Primary concerns are related to tree preservation, buffer from noise, light and adjacent uses, traffic and lighting impacts on adjacent properties through use of screening, automatic dimming or shutoff during overnight hours, and concern about noise from outdoor paging or public address systems. Zoning Designations Map City Zoning •Gateway District 7 8 10/12/2026 5 Property Information •The subject parcels are located north of CR E East and west of US-61. The parcels are east of Daniels Farm Road. •Property is within the Gateway (G) District and Shoreland Management Overlay District. •The parcels also include the Gateway subzones Neighborhood Center, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Neighborhood General, and Neighborhood Edge. The subzones do not follow the property lines. •There are currently nine existing structures. Most of the parcel areas are occupied by paved parking spaces for customers and merchandise. •The total existing building area is 88,580 square feet. •Proposed redevelopment to include an expansion to the auto dealership, car wash and Starbucks without drive through facilities but open to the public. Property Information (continued) •Neighborhood Edge: 5.2 acres of vegetation in Parcel 4 along the northern property boundary. Proposed to be within Proposed Parcel 1 and fully preserved, consistent with the intent of the NE sub- zone. •Neighborhood General: Northern half of vacant land in Parcel 4/Proposed Parcel 2 with some land located within the vegetated area in proposed Parcel 1, consistent with the intent of the NG sub- zone. •Neighborhood Mixed Use: Area includes the southern half of Parcel 4/Proposed Parcel 2 and a portion of the proposed parking lot (about three rows of parking). The parking lot is complimentary to the intent of the NMU sub-zone. •Neighborhood Center: Parcels 1, 2, and 3 are entirely within this sub-zone. The proposed use aligns with the intent for retail, office, and medium- large scale commercial activity. 9 10 10/12/2026 6 Land Use Designations 2040 Comp Plan •Single Family Residential •Subject Property (Commercial and Undeveloped) N Section 9.2.1 Relationship to City Ordinances •The requirements of this Section may conflict with or duplicate some portions of this Ordinance. Any such conflict, when it relates to the use of land in the Gateway District, shall be resolved in favor of the language in this Section. All other Gem Lake ordinances which relate to the construction of buildings and use of land included in the Consolidated Land Use Ordinance and other land use Ordinances apply within the Gateway District. 11 12 10/12/2026 7 Zoning Text Amendment •Section 17 Administration and Enforcement, Subsection 6 establishes the process for amending the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council may adopt amendments to this Ordinance provided that the amendment is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The applicant has submitted the following language to amend the Building Use Type 15a for Automotive Dealerships to add: •Modification/Exclusion (18): The City Council may exempt Auto Dealerships from the Tree Preservation/Reforestation standards where strict compliance with the ordinance standards would prohibit reasonable development or redevelopment of the property. Zoning Text Amendment (continued) •Section 17 Administration and Enforcement, Subsection 6 states that only applications for zoning amendments which meets one of the following conditions should be considered: 1. A mistake has been made in the original zoning which was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Municipal Plan adopted by the City which should now be corrected; or 2. Substantial changes have occurred within the City since the adoption of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan which changes should result in an amendment of both the zoning and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan; or 3. There shall exist a clear public need for a benefit to be derived from the proposed zoning which shall be greater than any benefit or convenience of the property owners. 4. Beyond a public need being evident, the application shall show that the public interest would be best served by rezoning the property in question and that the property in question is the best qualified to serve said public need; or 5. In the case of “down zoning” which would diminish the intensity of the current use to a less intensive use, the proposed zoning shall allow the property owners a reasonable use of their property under the terms of this ordinance as well as serve the public interest. 13 14 10/12/2026 8 Zoning Text Amendment (continued) •The applicant narrative dated 9/15/2026 states: “We find that this request meets item C/3 above. The redevelopment plan will increase not only the value and aesthetics of the site, which leads to increased tax base for the City of Gem Lake, but it will also bring the site into compliance with all current City Code standards, including, but not limited to lighting, screening, and stormwater. The Zoning Text Amendment will also allow the City some additional discretion in reviewing auto dealerships in relation to Tree Preservation and Reforestation and allow for site specific review rather than strict code compliance, such as the items presented in our current outstanding applications. The Zoning Text Amendment will also allow the redevelopment of a site that will allow a Gem Lake business to grow, which increases the tax base for the City and provides another destination commercial use that will bring more people to surrounding businesses in the area.” •Criteria 3 may apply to the applicant’s request. The proposed amendment does not impact nor is it applicable to the other automotive dealerships due to the lots recently being redeveloped or having few trees. The proposed designs from the applicant show a decrease in impervious surface coverage, an increase in landscaping, new lighting, improvements to stormwater and a modern building compared to the current site; the proposed building template would require other automotive dealerships to adhere to the same standards. Zoning Text Amendment (continued) •Ord. No. 131, Section 17.6.4.2 includes criteria to review for amendments to the ordinance, with the Planner’s findings in italics. •Adjacent Uses: The proposed use on the applicant’s property would expand and add a coffee shop, so there are expected changes impacting adjacent uses. The proposed site design and tree removal would impact the buffer between the applicant’s properties and their neighbors than the current site. •Air and Water Quality: Air quality may be impacted with the amount of tree removal proposed. According to the MN DNR, Conserving Wooded Areas in Developing Communities Best Management Practices, trees play an important role in cleaning air. They trap dust, reducing the need to clean doors, windows, decks ,patios, and exterior walls. They also remove chemical pollutants, including carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds, from the atmosphere and release oxygen. By trapping carbon compounds, they reduce the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Wooded areas and trees influence water flow, filtration, runoff, soil erosion, and sediment control, and provide clean water. According to studies by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975), wooded areas reduce runoff by 5 percent to 35 percent. This reduction is less than mowed grass and pastured areas depending on soil types. They also increase water percolation and infiltration. This function is of great importance to communities that depend essentially on ground water. Water quality would be improved, as the site will have more impervious surfaces in addition to an underground stormwater retention facility. •Traffic Generations: Traffic generation is expected to increase. Access to the site will be provided in three (3) locations, with the current right-in only access along County Road E planned to be closed. All study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with and without the proposed development. •Public Safety and Health: There are no changes expected to public safety and health. •Area Aesthetics: The area aesthetics would be improved under the proposed improvements by the applicant, with an improved building design than the current site. The commissioners should review and discuss whether additional changes are necessary. •Economic Impact on the Entire Area: The proposed amendment would be expected to have a positive economic impact on the surrounding area. The proposed site improvements could lead to more jobs, and an increase in tax base for the city. •Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Gateway District is set-up to incentivize new and redevelopment of the land around the Highway 61 and County Road E intersection. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the Barnett properties (and other parcels east of Highway 61 and north of County Road E) as ‘Gateway Zone – Neighborhood Center’ within the Future Land Use Map, which is consistent with the Gateway zones outlined in the Consolidated Land Use Ordinance. The Neighborhood Center is guided for multi-story ‘mixed use’ developments, with commercial/retail on ground floors and residential on floors above. The Gateway District allows for building type templates to be amended to carry out new or redevelopment in the district. The western-most portion of the Gateway District, located along County Road E (west of the private Daniels Farm Road) will consist of single family residential in the one acre buffer between Gateway land and existing residential areas. Land Use Goals and Policies identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are included later in the report. 15 16 10/12/2026 9 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions N 17 18 10/12/2026 10 Proposed Conditions Traffic •A Traffic Impact Study (TIS), prepared by Transportation Collaborative and Consultants, LLC (TC2), dated 6/7/2026 and updated on 9/25/2026 incorporating comments from the City and MnDOT regarding the changes to the Highway 61 access and expanded land uses. The (TIS) also provided conclusions based on the analysis of MnDOT data including: 1. The number of crashes at the County Road E and Highway 61 intersection is significantly higher than locations with similar characteristics from a crash rate perspective (i.e., a critical index over 1.0); all other study intersections had crash and severity rates within the normal range. 2. All study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours; existing queues are generally maintained within the current roadway geometry except westbound queues along County Road E at Highway 61, which occasionally extend beyond the adjacent left- and right-turn lanes during the p.m. peak hour. 3. The proposed development is a 144,310 square foot auto dealership, which is about 60% larger than the total current building area. As part of the project, a 1,115 square foot coffee shop is planned to be incorporated within the facility to serve dealership patrons as well as the general public. 4. Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 no build and build conditions, which included a one-half (0.5) percent annual background growth and trip generation from the proposed development. 1. The proposed development is estimated to generate 212 a.m. peak hour (126 in / 86 out), 177 p.m. peak hour (62 in / 115 out),and 2,400 daily (1,200 in / 1,200 out) trips. 2. When compared to the existing dealership, the change in net new system trips associated with the proposed development is 64 a.m. peak hour (40 in / 24 out), 60 p.m. peak hour (20 in / 40 out), and 800 daily (400 in / 400 out) trips. 5. Key takeaways from the future year 2030 capacity analysis, include: 1. All study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours with and without the proposed development. 2. Area queueing will remain relatively similar to the existing conditions; peak queues at the proposed site access locations are expected to range from two (2) to three (3) vehicles. 3. No mitigation is needed 19 20 10/12/2026 11 Traffic (continued) •The (TIS) identified considerations that the Planning Commission should consider as conditions of approval with the site redevelopment: 1. Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. 2. Review truck maneuverability to limit potential internal circulation conflicts. 3. Preserve the ability to accommodate a future multimodal facility (i.e., sidewalk or trail) along the north side of County Road E within the project site limits. Minor Subdivision •With the Zoning Text Amendment proposing to add the Modification and Exclusion from the tree preservation requirements and as conditioned, the subdivision may comply with the requirements of Section 25. •Per subsection 6.4, prior to approval of a Minor Subdivision the City Council reserves the right to require any or all sections of this Ordinance to be applied. 21 22 10/12/2026 12 Minor Subdivision (continued) •The Zoning Text Amendment would need to be approved in order to comply with subsection (9): a vegetation preservation and protection plan that shows those trees proposed to be removed, those to remain, the types and location of trees and other vegetation that are to be planted, and which indicates compliance with all attendant local ordinances. •The Minor Subdivision created by these proceedings shall be recorded with the County Register of Deeds within sixty (60) days after the date of approval by the City Council as a condition of approval. Proposed Redevelopment – Building Type •Type 15a Building, Automotive Dealership, is proposed and is a permitted use in the Gateway Zoning District subject to the following modifications or exclusions: 23 24 10/12/2026 13 Proposed Redevelopment – Building Type •This specific building type has certain exemptions from Gateway Zoning District development rules and is allowed if the following criteria are met: •Lot Size and Placement: •Lot size and placement is appropriate. Due to the orientation, proximity to the intersection, and comments from MnDOT, access will be obtained from County Road E East. A secondary access will be available on Highway 61 in the same location as the existing access. •Parking: •Customer parking requires “one space per 1,000 SF rounded up, plus one space for each service or cleanup stall. Outside inventory and service vehicles is not counted toward the parking requirements.” The applicant is proposing 1,179 stalls with 6 accessible stalls (121,451 square feet / 1,000 square feet + 67 service stalls = 188.5 (189 rounded) stalls required). •Impervious Surface Coverage: •“Maximum 80% of the lot”. The applicant is proposing Parcel 1 (dealership) to have a total of 58.6% impervious surface coverage and Parcel 2 (vacant) to have a total of 0.0% coverage. •Height: •The maximum height permitted is two stories or 36’ total. The dealership proposed to construct the building no taller than 28 feet and no shorter than 18 feet. Height varies by building area, for example the showroom area is 28 feet tall, whereas the car wash/detailing space is 18 feet tall. •Building Disposition: •The footprint requirement of 1-2 stories with minimum 20,000 square feet is met. Parking setbacks of 20 feet from the County Road ROW, 10 feet from the Highway 61 ROW, and 10 feet from interior lot lines, are met. Building setbacks of 30 feet from any lot line are met. The orientation of the building is appropriate. Proposed Redevelopment – Building Type •Section 18.8 Lighting •Lighting must be arranged to deflect light from adjoining properties and streets. The height cannot exceed the maximum principal structure height (36 feet). Lighting to illuminate sales lots shall not exceed 120-foot candles at 36 inches off the ground. •Proposed lighting will be directed downward. Lighting will be placed throughout the parking areas and against the building. Lighting poles will be 24 feet tall with a 3-foot base (27 feet total). Lighting placed on the building will be located 16 feet up. See Figure 7 for the proposed lighting style. •The redevelopment of the Barnett Kia dealership in the Gateway District was approved in 2024. The Commission at that time discussed the intensity of the lighting at night. A condition of approval was: “The applicant must dim sales lot and parking lot lighting to 15% illuminance between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Said lighting shall be able to be motion-activated to 100% illuminance for security purposes.” The Commission should discuss whether this requirement should be applied to Apple Ford. 25 26 10/12/2026 14 Proposed Redevelopment – Tree Preservation •The applicant submitted a tree inventory, landscape plan, and narrative describing the tree preservation and acknowledging the inability to supply over 1,500 new trees to comply with the ordinance. •A portion of the development site is within the Shoreland Overlay Zone. •The applicant proposes an alternative for the City to review in terms of the landscape and tree preservation replacement. •The applicant included a description of their approach in the submittal. In summary, the applicant is proposing to replace the maximum feasible number of trees to promote healthy growth, will clean up the existing tree stands, remove invasive species and unhealthy plants. The applicant will voluntarily pay the city for parkland dedication despite creating no new lots. See Figure 5 for planting locations. Figure 6 shows the total number of trees being preserved and removed in the shoreland and non-shoreland areas as well as the replacement factors as required by ordinance. •The application includes the following statements from the developer, “In order to meet the requirements of removal and replacements needed, the development would need to supply over 1,500 new trees in addition to the 248 preserved trees on site and the more than 200 new trees proposed. This is not a feasible number for the proposed use, and the amount of space left would not be sufficient for these trees to grow, develop, and remain healthy. Tree Preservation (Continued) 27 28 10/12/2026 15 2040 Comprehensive Plan •The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides physical growth and development with the plan used to evaluate private development proposals against the overall goals of this plan and is regarded as the general guide to the legal regulation of land development controlled by Ordinance 131, the Consolidated Land Use Ordinance. •The existing commercial/business land uses in the City of Gem Lake are concentrated in and around the U.S. Highway 61/County Road E intersection. This includes two large car dealerships, other auto/motorcycle-oriented businesses, and a marine sales retailer. A small neighborhood bar, a coffee shop, and a floral retail establishment also exist in this area. There are approximately 41 acres in this category. A portion of the approximately 18-acre parcel on County Rd E is currently used for macro-agriculture, though zoned for mixed use/residential per the Gateway District zoning rules. •The one-acre buffer continues east of Daniels Farm Road to the point where it ends against the land designated as open space under the conservation easement. Between the buffer, County Road E and the point where the Neighborhood Center sub-zone begins, exists the Neighborhood General and Neighborhood Mixed Use subzones totaling approximately 12 acres. Mixed use office space, retail, and residential may occur in this portion at a ratio of about 60% office, 20% commercial, and 20% residential. •Land Use Goals and Policies identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that are not supported by the potential Zoning Text Amendment include: •Goal #1: Protect and enhance the natural environment in the City of Gem Lake; •Goal #9: Provide buffers using berms, trees, and other natural resources to insulate the residential areas of the City from noise, light pollution, and traffic. •Policy #11: It is acknowledged that the character and natural environment of the City of Gem Lake depends on the continuance of natural vegetation within and along its borders. The City will encourage the continued planting of new and the preservation of existing trees to sustain and improve the natural beauty of the community. •The commissioners should review whether the proposed amendment will carry out the intent of the 2040 Plan and is consistent withthe goals and policies of the Land Use section Staff and Agency Comments •Applicant provided updated plans on 9/18/2026 addressing Fire Department comments. Fire Inspector: •Reviewing the application and will provide comments; building permit will be required. Building Official: •Reviewed the applications and provided a memo dated September 25, 2026 outlining the remaining general site and stormwater comments to be addressed Engineering: •No comments.DNR: •Valley gutters are present at the existing entrances. The proposed plan details do not appear to show valley gutters going back in, but they should be reinstalled per the appropriate County detail. At the easterly entrance that is being removed, remove and replace the existing valley gutter, with curb and gutter to match the adjacent curb and gutter on CR E. Permits are needed for 2x closure of existing accesses, new commercial accesses, stormwater connection, once approved, sanitary and city water connections. •Final comments will be sent on October 12, 2026. Ramsey County: •Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is reviewing the applications and provided a review letter dated October 6, 2026. Drainage and ROW permits are required along with the traffic modeling data provided to MnDOT for records purposes. MnDOT: •No comments. Wetland delineation was approved on July 14, 2026.VLAWMO: 29 30 10/12/2026 16 The Planning Commission has the following options for each of the requests with a separate motion being made for each request: 1.Recommend approval of the request, with or without conditions. 2.Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial. 3.Table the request for further review/study Actions •Staff recommends the Planning Commission table the request for a Zoning Text Amendment, minor subdivision of 1491, 1485, and 0 County Road E East, and 3651 Highway 61 resulting in two lots and a zoning compliance certificate to allow for redevelopment of a car dealership to allow for Minnesota Department of Transportation and City Engineer comments to be addressed regarding the Traffic Impact Study. Recommendation 31 32