Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11.04.24 Council Packet
Meeting Location: Farmington City Hall, Council Chambers 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Monday, November 4, 2024 7:00 PM Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVE AGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS / COMMENDATIONS 6. CITIZENS COMMENTS / RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (This time is reserved for citizen comments regarding non-agenda items. No official action can be taken on these items. Speakers are limited to five minutes to address the city council during citizen comment time.) 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.1. Gambling Exempt Permit Application from Farmington Volleyball Club, Event Dates January 10 and 24, 2025 Agenda Item: Gambling Exempt Permit Application from Farmington Volleyball Club, Event Dates January 10 and 24, 2025 - Pdf 4 - 7 7.2. Gambling Permit Application from Farmington Wrestling Club, Event Dates December 7-8, 2024 Agenda Item: Gambling Permit Application from Farmington Wrestling Club, Event Dates December 7-8, 2024 - Pdf 8 - 11 7.3. Staff Recommendations Agenda Item: Staff Recommendations - Pdf 12 - 13 7.4. Resolution 2024-96 Authorizing the Dakota County Community Development Agency to Administer City Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) Funds Agenda Item: Resolution 2024-96 Authorizing the Dakota County Community Development Agency to Administer City Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) Fund - Pdf 14 - 26 Page 1 of 503 7.5. Financial Review for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2024 Agenda Item: Financial Review for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2024 - Pdf 27 - 42 7.6. Payment of Claims Agenda Item: Payment of Claims - Pdf 43 - 44 Payment of Claims 7.7. Agreement with Action Overhead Garage Door for New Garage Doors and Openers at Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2 Agenda Item: Agreement with Action Overhead Garage Door for New Garage Doors and Openers at Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2 - Pdf 45 - 54 7.8. Donation of a Bench for Downtown from Farmington High School Marching Band Senior Class of 2025 Agenda Item: Donation of a Bench for Downtown from Farmington High School Marching Band Senior Class of 2025 - Pdf 55 - 56 7.9. Second Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Pilot Knob Road Trail Preliminary Design Agenda Item: Second Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Pilot Knob Road Trail Preliminary Design - Pdf 57 - 60 7.10. Professional Services Agreement with Barr Engineering for the Well No. 10 Siting Agenda Item: Professional Services Agreement with Barr Engineering for the Well No. 10 Siting - Pdf 61 - 78 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 12.1. Resolution 2024-97 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park As the RGU, the City Council is asked to consider Resolution 2024-97 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park. Agenda Item: Resolution 2024-97 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park - Pdf 79 - 473 12.2. 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Properties Commonly Known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and Angus Properties 474 - 503 Page 2 of 503 2. Rezoning of the Fountain Valley Golf Course and Property Formerly Known as the Angus Property from B-1 (Highway Business), R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Low/Medium Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), P/OS (Park/Open Space), and A-1 (Agriculture) to MUCI (Mixed-Use Commercial/Industrial) - Kimley-Horn 3. Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Farmington Technology Park - MNLCO Farmington, LLC & MNLCO Farmington Two, LLC (Tract) By separate actions approve the following: 1. Adopt Resolution 2024-98 Adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Properties Commonly Known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus Properties and Authorize the Submittal of the Amendments to the Metropolitan Council. 2. Adopt Ordinance 2024-11 Rezoning the Properties Commonly Known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus Properties. 3. Adopt Resolution 2024-99 approving the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Farmington Technology Park. Agenda Item: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the properties commonly known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and Angus properties2. Rezoning of th - Pdf 13. CITY COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 14. ADJOURN Page 3 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk Department: Administration Subject: Gambling Exempt Permit Application from Farmington Volleyball Club, Event Dates January 10 and 24, 2025 Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: Farmington Volleyball Club has applied for a Gambling Exempt Permit for January 10 and 24, 2025. DISCUSSION: Per State Statute and City Code, gambling permit applications must first be approved by the City before the applicant may submit their application to the Gambling Control Board. Farmington Volleyball Club will be holding a raffle on both January 10 and 24, 2025. Adoption of a resolution approving the Gambling Exempt Permit is required as part of their application to the Gambling Control Board. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-94 Concurring with the Issuance of a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to Conduct Raffle - Farmington Volleyball Club, January 10 and 24, 2025. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-94 Gambling Event Permit, Farmington Volleyball Club, Jan 10 and 24, 2025 Gambling Permit, Farmington Volleyball Club Page 4 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-94 A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPT PERMIT TO CONDUCT A RAFFLE – FARMINGTON VOLLEYBALL CLUB, JANUARY 10 AND 24, 2025 WHEREAS, the Farmington Volleyball Club has made application for a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to the Gambling Control Board to conduct a raffle on January 10 and also January 24, 2025; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has no objections to the said activity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington Mayor and City Council hereby concur with the issuance of a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit by the Gambling Control Board to the Farmington Volleyball Club for a raffle to be held on January 10 and 24, 2025. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 4th day of November 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 5 of 503 ,.,--- MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING 4/23 Page 1 of 3 LG220 Application for Exempt Permit An exempt permit may be issued to a nonprofit organization that: • conducts lawful gambling on five or fewer days, and• awards less than $50,000 in prizes during a calendaryear.If total raffle prize value for the calendar year will be $1,500 or less, contact the Licensing Specialist assigned to your county by calling 651-539-1900. ORGANIZATION INFORMATION Organization ·" J... _ Name: a!(mjhr1cn Minnesota Tax ID 0 Application Fee (non-refundable) Applications are processed in the order received. If the application is postmarked or received 30 days or more before the event, the application fee is $100; otherwise the fee is $150. Due to the high volume of exempt applications, payment of additional fees prior to 30 days before your event will not expedite service, nor are telephone requests for expedited service accepted. Previous Gambling Permit Number: X-_____________ 1Federal Employer ID Number, if any: _________________ _ Number (FEIN), if any: ______________ _ Malling Address: _2.--...C""-')5 ___ 3,,,____\L-�..L.L.I �-'__._Sb].,_,_· ..c..,e,,__-et ....• -'----------------------- City: --�--=---.,cO'Yl__,____,_'--i-�ei±vo.o.=.,._,_ ______ State: _._M_.__N�-Zip: Name of Chief Executive Officer (CEO): -���-f¼--'i'-"101"-'L-o-"-'"e=---+kc..-=le:...i,__h_,__ __________________ _ County: ----�F--'--k.o�Pt�--- CEO Daytime Phone: lbS I )2Qe-( 1'1 � CEO Email: _...i:.u�\"-!..Lf'r\11t.Ll-�a::::J--o!.•.r_,v...,b=@,._,Otrnt;t'-f"-'-..=..;·,.L...>,\t,=�-'---'------- (permit will b�mailed to ttM email address unless otherwise indicated below) Email permit to (if other than the CEO): NONPROFIT STATUS Type of Nonprofit Organization (check one): (321'pther Nonprofit Organization D Fraternal D Religious D VeteransAttach a copy of 20£ of the following showing proof of nonprofit status: (DO NOT attach a sales tax exempt status or federal employer ID number, as they are not proof of nonprofit status.) D A current calendar year Certificate of Good StandingDon't have a copy? Obtain this certificate from: MN Secretary of State, Business Services Division Secretary of State website, phone numbers: 60 Empire Drive, Suite 100 www.sos.state.mn.us St. Paul, MN 55103 651-296-2803, or toll free 1-877-551-6767�RS Income tax exemption (501(c)) letter in your organization's nameL!'.:J .a Don't have a copy? To obtain a copy of your federal income tax exempt letter, have an organization officer contact the IRS toll free at 1-877-829-5500. □IRS -Affiliate of national, statewide, or international parent nonprofit organization (charter) If your organization falls under a parent organization, attach copies of mill! of the following: 1.IRS letter showing your parent organization is a nonprofit 501(c) organization with a group ruling; and 2. the charter or letter from your parent organization recognizing your organization as a subordinate. GAMBLING PREMISES INFORMATION Name of premises where the gambling event will be conducted � Ci� L (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place): _ __,, .... ���cc-3.___�l���'-.>o,.}�JT_i�_e=-·-r ____________ _ Physical Address (do not use P.O. box): __ 3._._..o...,&=-·--=3'---.._\'j-4-'-I �-r�St...._. ------------------- Check one: Zip: � fv\ N County: �Ot--=-'-_,_k.....,,__�----w;ty: teivm,1rJ® 0Township: ____________________ Zip: ____ _ County: ___________ _ Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing): -'J......,,a,=n-'-"Wl...,....,c...Cl ....... 4_1,__,Q,.___.;cllN.:._;=l __ :2__.4 ..... ,-'-z�o-=zc...c;�--- Check each type of gambling activity that your organization will conduct: □Bingo DPaddlewheels D Pull-Tabs DTipboards �e Gambling equipment for bingo paper, bingo boards, raffle boards, paddlewheels, pull-tabs, and tipboards must be obtained from a distributor licensed by the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. EXCE PTION: Bingo hard cards and bingo ball selection devices may be borrowed from another organization authorized to conduct bingo. To find a licensed distributor, go to www.mn.gov/gcb and click on Distributors under the List of Licensees tab, or call 651-539-1900. Page 6 of 503 Page 7 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Shirley Buecksler, City Clerk Department: Administration Subject: Gambling Permit Application from Farmington Wrestling Club, Event Dates December 7-8, 2024 Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: Farmington Wrestling Club has applied for an Off-Site Gambling Permit for December 7-8, 2024. DISCUSSION: Per State Statute and City Code, gambling permit applications must first be approved by the City before the applicant may submit their application to the Gambling Control Board. Farmington Wrestling Club will be holding off-site gambling December 7-8, 2024 at the Farmington VFW, 421 Third Street, Farmington, Minnesota. Adoption of a resolution approving the Gambling Exempt Permit is required as part of their application to the Gambling Control Board. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-95 Concurring with the Issuance of a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to Conduct Off-Site Gambling, Farmington Wrestling Club, December 7-8, 2024. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-95 Gambling Event Permit, Farmington Wrestling Club, December 7-8, 2024 Gambling Permit, Farmington Wrestling Club Page 8 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-95 A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING EXEMPT PERMIT TO CONDUCT OFF-SITE GAMBLING FARMINGTON WRESTLING CLUB, DECEMBER 7-8, 2024 WHEREAS, the Farmington Wrestling Club has made application for a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit to the Gambling Control Board to conduct off-site gambling on December 7-8, 2024 at the Farmington VFW, 421 Third Street, Farmington, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Farmington has no objections to the said activity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington Mayor and City Council hereby concur with the issuance of a Lawful Gambling Exempt Permit by the Gambling Control Board to the Farmington Wrestling Club to hold off-site gambling on December 7-8, 2024 at Farmington VFW, 421 Third Street, Farmington, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 4th day of November 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 9 of 503 Page 10 of 503 Page 11 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Lynn Gorski, City Administrator Department: HR Subject: Staff Recommendations Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: Approve the hiring of the following candidates. DISCUSSION: Following a comprehensive hiring process, it is with great honor that we seek your approval for the appointment of Sergeant Nate Siem to the position of Deputy Police Chief for the Farmington Police Department. This process involved a thorough review of qualifications, experience, and alignment with the department's leadership goals, and we are pleased to report that Nate Siem met all established criteria. With 19 years of dedicated service within the Farmington Police Department, Nate has consistently demonstrated the commitment, skills, and leadership qualities required to excel in this role. We look forward to welcoming Nate in this new capacity, with a tentative start date set for November 11, 2024. After going through the hiring process for Public Works Maintenance Worker we are honored to announce Joe Cook was selected. Joe has worked for Hydro Vac Inc. for the past five years as an Operator. Prior to that he was a Material Handler for Performance Office Papers and has over 30 years of operating a farm and heavy equipment. We look forward to welcoming Joe to the Farmington team. The following candidates have been selected for the upcoming Parks and Recreation seasonal positions. Seasonal Arena Skate Guard: •Colton Muell Seasonal Warming House Attendants: •Evrett Bennett •Lauren Lansing •Josilyn Tooley •Logan Stenson •Mason Eby •Dylan Kaiser •Tyler Aase Page 12 of 503 •Anna Goodrich •Ava Goodrich •Maya Tracey •William Lichtsinn Seasonal Warming House Supervisor: • Lauren Fleming BUDGET IMPACT: Wages are included in the 2024 and 2025 budget. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the hiring of listed seasonal candidates, Joe Cook as Public Works Maintenance Worker, and the promotion of Nate Siem for Deputy Police Chief. Page 13 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Deanna Kuennen, Community & Economic Development Director Department: Community Development Subject: Resolution 2024-96 Authorizing the Dakota County Community Development Agency to Administer City Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) Funds Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: On May 15, 2023, Governor Walz signed the $1.065 billion housing omnibus bill, creating Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) that provides direct annual allocations to metro Cities and Counties for the purpose of developing and preserving affordable housing. On July 1, 2024 - Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) Staff and Commissioner Slavik attended a City Council work session to discuss acting as the administrator of City LAHA funds, proposing potential programs and ways to assist in the deployment of LAHA in the communities. Based on the outcomes of that discussion, and with the discussions held in a total of nine Dakota County Cities, the CDA has formalized their offer to be the administrator of local LAHA funds. They propose leveraging local LAHA funding to administering two programs: 1) an expansion of the CDA's existing Home Improvement Loan Program (rehab program); and 2) a new radon mitigation grant program that will be paired with the rehab program. The CDA has experience in administering such programs and the necessary Staff capacity to administer the programs and fulfill all reporting requirements. The CDA is asking communities who wish to collaborate, to commit a minimum funding amount to the programs for a three-year term. Farmington received $88,549.46 this year and is estimated to receive $281,120, and $289,529 respectively in years two and three. Estimated LAHA Funding: Page 14 of 503 DISCUSSION: The housing omnibus bill signed by Governor Walz created a new 0.25 percent metro sales tax to fund rental assistance, as well as the Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) that provides direct annual allocations to metro cities and counties for the purpose of developing and preserving affordable housing. The qualifying uses of the funds are broad and range from preservation and Page 15 of 503 new construction of income-qualified rental units, preservation and new construction of income- qualified homeownership units, financial support to non-housing providers, and emergency rental assistance to income-eligible households. The funding requires annual reporting beginning December 1, 2025 - and Cities and Counties have three years to commit the funds and another year to fully spend the funds. At the July work session, the City Council discussed, in depth, possible program ideas and ways to utilize the LAHA funds. It was concluded that without leveraging the funds, the City of Farmington would be very limited on what could be accomplished alone. In addition, existing staff does not have the expertise or capacity to develop and deploy new housing programs at this time. The Dakota County CDA administers the City's CDBG funds currently and does have the capacity and expertise required and programming eligible perform efficiently and effectively to provide administrative tasked associated with the LAHA funds. After meeting with nine Dakota County communities, the Dakota County CDA is offering to formally collaborate with cities to administer two programs: 1. An expansion of the existing Home Improvement Loan Program (rehab program) 2. A new Radon Mitigation Grant Program that will be paired with the rehab program In addition, the CDA Board of Commissioners approved the use of CDA levy funds to pay for a full- time home improvement advisor to administer and deploy LAHA funds. This additional staff capacity ensures that the CDA can deploy approximately $1.2 million of LAHA funds. This includes administering the programs; appropriately allocating and expending LAHA funds on eligible uses; hiring and supervising Staff; providing regular updates to City partners; and completing reporting requirements for the LAHA funds administered by the CDA. Cities are requested to formally commit to partnering with the Dakota County CDA by December 2, 2024, via resolution and ultimately enter into a joint powers agreement. Attached is a letter from Tony Schertler, Executive Director of the Dakota County CDA - outlining the programs being offered with a proposed term sheet, along with program overviews. BUDGET IMPACT: LAHA funds received by the City of Farmington would be directed to the CDA to hold, track, and administer. No additional costs are anticipated. ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is asked to consider approval of Resolution 2024-96 authorizing the Dakota County This funds. (LAHA) Aid Housing Local Farmington's administer to CDA Affordable resolution also authorizes the mayor to execute the forthcoming joint powers agreement related to this partnership with the Dakota County CDA. ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION 2024-96 - Authorizing CDA to Administer LAHA Funds for Farmington LAHA.Collaboration.Memo.Farmington 2024 Expanded Home Imrpovement Loan Program Overview 2024 Radon Mitigation Grant Program Overview Page 16 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-96 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DAKOTA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO ADMINISTER CITY LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING AID FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Farmington (City) is a recipient of newly created sales tax funded Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) dollars from the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the purpose of LAHA is to develop and preserve affordable housing and help persons who experience homelessness find housing; and WHEREAS, the City’s first annual allocation of LAHA funds for 2024 is $88,549.46 and estimates provided by the Department of Revenue indicate that Farmington is expected to receive $281,120 in year two and $289,529 in year three; and WHEREAS, the City has three years to commit the 2024 funding (no later than December 31, 2027) and must spend the funds by December 31, 2028; and WHEREAS, if the City’s LAHA funds are not committed or spent in the required timeframe, funds will be returned to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for statewide housing needs; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Community Agency (CDA) is the housing and economic development authority for the County and has well established, successful housing programs that are LAHA eligible; and WHEREAS, the CDA has formally offered to partner with Dakota County communities to administer the LAHA funds specifically for two CDA programs: 1) the Home Improvement Loan Program and 2) the Radon Mitigation Grant Program (together “the Programs”); and WHEREAS, the CDA has requested that cities provide a formal response by December 2, 2024, regarding interest in partnering with the CDA on the administration of the City’s LAHA funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota, that the City of Farmington approves the following: 1. Designation of the Dakota County CDA as the entity to carry out certain administrative duties related to the Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) program on behalf of the City of Farmington, subject to a future joint powers agreement to be executed between the two parties. 2. The City allocates 100-percent of its LAHA funds to the two CDA programs offered, for a time specifically identified in the joint powers agreement: Page 17 of 503 a. Home Improvement Loan Program (90-percent) b. Radon Mitigation Grant Program (10-percent) 3. The Mayor for the City of Farmington is authorized to execute the joint powers agreement related to partnership with the Dakota County CDA. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 4th day of November 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 18 of 503 To: City of Farmington From: Dakota County Community Development Agency Date: September 30, 2024 Re: Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) Collaboration Opportunity Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) staff were invited to nine Dakota County cities from June – September 2024 to discuss the Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) funds and potential collaboration opportunities. CDA staff appreciated learning more about the housing needs within your communities and how we can work together to make a difference with this new funding source exclusively for affordable housing. The first portion of 2024 LAHA funds have been distributed to the metro cities and counties. LAHA recipients have three years to commit the funds and another year to fully spend the funds. If the funds are not spent within those four years, the funds will be returned to the State. Annual reporting will begin December 1, 2025, with the reporting instrument yet to be developed by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). Based upon the well-received LAHA conversations, the CDA is formally requesting to collaborate with the cities to administer two programs: 1) an expansion of the CDA’s existing Home Improvement Loan Program (rehab program); and 2) a new radon mitigation grant program that will be paired with the rehab program. The CDA will continue to have conversations with cities about utilizing LAHA funds for preservation and new construction gap financing, but we are not requesting cities commit to participating in that program at this time. We are only asking for a decision to collaborate on the rehab program and radon mitigation program so that we can add staff capacity to effectively deploy city LAHA funds. LAHA funds cannot currently be used to pay for administrative expenses. At its September 25 meeting, the CDA Board of Commissioners approved the use of CDA levy funds to pay for a full-time home improvement advisor to administer and deploy city LAHA funds. The use of LAHA for administration dollars will be tracked, evaluated, and advocated for at the State to be an eligible use. If statutory authority ever allows LAHA to be used for administrative expenses, the CDA will determine a formula and will amend agreements with cities. With the additional staff capacity, we estimate that we could deploy approximately $1.2 million of LAHA on the expanded rehab program and the new radon mitigation grant program. We are asking for cities to commit a minimum amount to the programs for a three-year term. Those Page 19 of 503 cities that choose not to participate in 2024 may, of course, decide to collaborate with the CDA in the future. As an administrator of LAHA funds on behalf of the city partners, the CDA will be responsible for: administering the programs; appropriately allocating and expending LAHA funds on eligible uses; hiring and supervising staff; providing regular updates to city staff; and completing reporting requirements for the LAHA funds administered by the CDA. See the attached CDA/City LAHA Partnership Proposed Term Sheet for additional information. The CDA is requesting a formal response from cities no later than Monday, December 2, 2024, stating if the city will collaborate with the CDA on the two programs offered for the 2024 LAHA funds. A formal response must be taken by the city elected officials in the form of a resolution. A sample resolution is attached for your consideration. After responses are received, CDA staff will work with city staff to draft joint powers agreements (JPA). Approving a resolution in support of collaborating does not mean a city must sign the JPA if the CDA and the city cannot agree upon the terms. We look forward to working with your community on this important resource to improve existing housing stock in Dakota County. Please contact Lisa Alfson at lalfson@dakotacda.org or 651- 675-4467 if you have any questions. Best regards, Tony Schertler Executive Director Page 20 of 503 Dakota County CDA-City Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) Partnership PROPOSED Term Sheet The Dakota County CDA (CDA) provides housing and economic development assistance to residents and cities in Dakota County. As a leader in affordable housing and community development, the CDA seeks to partner with interested Dakota County municipalities to use their LAHA funds for three programs that are considered qualifying projects as defined in Minnesota Statutes 477A.35. The CDA will enter into Joint Powers Agreements (JPAs) with each city for the administration of the LAHA funds. Here are the proposed terms for the partnership between the cities and CDA for the administration of the LAHA dollars. The CDA is open to discussing these proposed terms and how they can be improved to best serve the needs of the cities and the CDA. 1. Expanded Home Improvement Loan Program (Rehab Program): LAHA funds will be administered in accordance with the Home Improvement Loan Program policy and procedures handbook. Households at or below the 80% Area Median Income (AMI) will be prioritized. If/when there are no priority households on the waiting list to be served, the CDA will then consider serving households above 80% AMI to the maximum LAHA income limit of 115% AMI. See attached program summary for details. 2. Radon Mitigation Grant Program: This newly created grant program will pay for the radon testing and installation of a mitigation system, if needed. At this time, this program will only be for clients of the Rehab Program. See attached program summary for details. 3. Timeframe: The CDA is requesting to enter into a multi-year agreement (3-5 years) on agreed terms. Each city will decide annually whether it wants to continue providing its LAHA funds to the CDA for the proposed programs. Each city’s annual allocation for the proposed programs will be an addendum to the agreement. Previous years’ funds will remain with the CDA under the terms of the agreement. 4. Reporting: The CDA will provide data and will complete reporting forms for city partners that the cities will need to submit to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). Because the CDA is not a direct recipient of LAHA funds, we do not believe we can submit the forms to MHFA. However, we will provide all requested information related to the CDA-administered programs in whatever form is required by MHFA. The CDA will provide quarterly reports to the cities regarding project pipeline, project start and completion dates, amount spent on project, and other information as requested. Identifying data for individual clients for the Rehab and Radon programs will be aggregated by city. Page 21 of 503 5. Funding Commitment: If your community chooses to allocate funds to the Rehab and Radon mitigation programs, the CDA respectfully requests cities commit the same amount of funding or more each year for a minimum of three years. Having a baseline funding amount and a funding commitment creates stability for the programs and allows rehab staff to work through waiting lists for the programs. Additionally, a stable funding source gives the CDA the confidence to hire additional staff to administer the cities’ LAHA funds. 6. Program Income: As loans from the Rehab program are paid back, the CDA could retain these funds in individual city accounts and reuse the funds for other affordable housing projects. The CDA anticipates recycling Rehab loan payoffs for future single-family home loans. 7. Administrative Costs: Because the legislation does not allow LAHA to be used for administrative costs, the CDA Board has committed CDA levy funds to support an additional home improvement advisor to assist with the deployment of the cities’ LAHA funds. However, if/when there is a change in the LAHA legislation to allow these funds to be used for administrative costs, the CDA will request that a portion of the LAHA funds be used for administrative costs rather than the CDA’s levy. 8. Withdrawal: Either the city or the CDA may withdraw from the JPA at the end of the term of the agreement or when committed LAHA funds have been expended on qualifying projects. Neither the city nor the CDA may withdrawal from the agreement until the end of the term unless mutually agreed upon. 9. Finances: The CDA is proposing to hold and track CDA-administered LAHA funds on behalf of the cities. Page 22 of 503 Project Proposal: Expanded Single-Family Home Improvement Loan Program Project Purpose: Expand the existing CDA-administered Home Improvement Loan Program to include Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) funding. The expanded Home Improvement Loan Program would be available to residents earning no more than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). Those homeowners who earn between 81-115% AMI in cities that contribute to the expanded Home Improvement Loan Program will be placed on a waitlist and will be eligible for the program only if there are no homeowners below 80% AMI on the waitlist. Project Objectives: • Continue to improve the housing stock of Dakota County. • Expand existing program with proven results to more income-eligible residents of County. • Provide cities with a way to use LAHA for an existing housing program. • Diversify funding resources for an existing CDA program. Project Outcomes: • Increase number of homes improved from 60-70 per year to 115-120 per year after Year 2 of infusion of cities’ LAHA funds. Project Details: • Provide deferred 0% loans of up to $35,000 for home improvement projects. • Home improvement projects prioritize health, safety, and structural integrity issues. o Common improvements include new roofs, siding, HVAC systems, windows, building foundation or other structural updates, accessibility improvements, kitchens and bathrooms(accessibility). o Other improvements would be considered if they address health and safety issues or otherwise improve the value of the home. Common improvements are repairs or replacement of detached garages, kitchens and bathrooms (non-accessibility), driveway replacement/repair • Homeowners must be income eligible and meet other CDA program requirements, e.g. own and reside in home, meet credit standards, be current on property taxes, properties must be at least 15 years old, etc. o CDBG funds require 80% AMI cap o LAHA requires 115% AMI cap • Eligible homeowners with incomes at or below 80% AMI could use either countywide and city CDBG and cities’ LAHA funds. • Eligible homeowners with incomes between 81-115% AMI would use only available city LAHA funds and only if there are no homeowners with incomes at or below 80% in that city. • Program income generated from LAHA would be used for future home improvement loans, similar to the CDBG program. The CDA would track program income and deposit into individual city accounts. Page 23 of 503 Project Funding: • Current CDBG entitlement funding totals $1,193,635 for FY 2023, which includes cities and Dakota County CDBG allocated to the CDA’s existing Home Improvement Loan Program. • CDA spends approximately $1,900,000 to rehab 70 homes in a fiscal year, on average. These loans are currently financed primarily with federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, though there are some CDA levy dollars included. o Takes about 18 months to fully expend a year’s worth of CDBG and program income. o Funds are replenished annually, provided Congress funds the CDBG program. • Future LAHA – CDA estimates it could successfully deploy an additional approximately $1,400,000 to rehabilitate an additional 55 loans per year after first full year of additional funds. • Individual cities contributing their LAHA funds to the expanded Home Improvement Loan Program would have separate subaccounts that will be tracked by CDA staff. Project Staff: • Existing staff: o 1 FT Rehab Coordinator o 1 FT Rehab Advisor o 1 FT PSA o 2 Rehab Advisor contractors – each takes 5-7 files per year, total of 15 • One additional FT Rehab Advisor will be needed to deploy city LAHA funds. The CDA Board of Commissioners has committed to funding this position with CDA levy until the Local Affordable Housing Aid legislation is changed to allow LAHA funds to be used for administrative costs. At that time, the CDA will work with cities to use a portion of the LAHA funds for the Rehab Advisor position. Project Reporting: The CDA would provide annual reports to participating cities and Dakota County. The annual report would include the following: o Community’s contribution to program that fiscal year o Number of loans using LAHA o LAHA funds expended o Program income generated Page 24 of 503 Proposed Project: Dakota County Homeowner Radon Testing and Mitigation Grant Program Project Purpose: The average radon level in Minnesota is more than three times higher than the U.S. radon level. This is due to our geology and how our homes operate. Minnesota homes are closed up or heated most of the year, which can result in higher levels of radon. In Minnesota, more than two in five homes have radon levels that pose a significant health risk. Exposure to radon over a prolonged period can lead to lung cancer. Minnesota Department of Health website The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set the action level at 4 pCi/L (picocuries of radon per liter of air). The Minnesota Department of Health recommends installing a radon mitigation system when the radon level is at 4 pCi/L or higher. Between 2 and 4 pCi/L, a radon mitigation system should be considered to lower the level as much as possible. The average indoor radon level in Dakota County is 3.6 pCi/L as determined by radon test results from AirChek, an at-home radon testing company. There is no safe level of radon in a home. The proposed Homeowner Radon Testing and Mitigation Grant program would provide free testing services to clients of the Home Improvement Loan Program and would provide free mitigation services for those residents whose homes have radon levels greater than 2.6 pCi/L. A lower radon level was chosen as the benchmark in order to reduce radon levels in existing homes as much as possible. The Radon Grant Program will be paired with the CDA’s Home Improvement Loan Program. Homeowners in the Home Improvement Loan Program have incomes at or below 80% of Area Median Income. By pairing a Radon grant with a Home Improvement Loan, homeowners can stretch their loans to cover more items that need improvement. Project Objectives: • Continue to improve the housing stock of Dakota County. • Reduce potential future risk of lung cancers in Dakota County residents. • Provide cities with a way to use Local Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA). Project Outcomes: • Test at least 50 homes in Dakota County for radon per year. The homes will be those of clients in the Home Improvement Loan Program. • Install radon mitigation systems in all homes assessed for radon with levels greater than 2.6 pCi/L per year, subject to available funding. • Reduce the number of homes with high radon levels. Mitigation systems would be required to reduce radon to < 2.0 pCi/L. Project Details: • Provide grants to clients of the Home Improvement Loan Program to test for and mitigate radon when levels are 2.6 pCi/L or greater. Page 25 of 503 • Homeowners must own and reside in home, be current on property taxes, and be income eligible. o CDBG funds require 80% AMI cap o Sales tax funds require 115% AMI cap • Homeowners would need to sign a grant agreement if they are recipients. • Homeowners will solicit bids from two licensed mitigators; CDA will evaluate bids for cost reasonableness. • CDA will pay mitigators upon completion of project and satisfactory clearance test numbers (< 2.0). Project Funding: • Funding exclusively through LAHA funds. • Estimate program would need $200,000 per year to assess for and install radon mitigation systems in at least 50 homes per year. • LAHA funds would be placed in individual city accounts at the CDA and will be spent within the four-year spending deadline. • The individual city accounts will be tracked by the CDA. Project Staff: • The Radon Mitigation Grant program would use existing Home Improvement Loan Program staff and the additional Home Improvement Loan Program staff that will be hired to deploy LAHA funds. Project Reporting: The CDA would provide annual reports to participating cities and Dakota County. The annual report would include the following: o Community’s contribution to program that fiscal year. o Number of grants using LAHA funds. o Amount spent per year. Page 26 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kim Sommerland, Finance Director Department: Finance Subject: Financial Review for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2024 Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: Staff provides a quarterly review of the General Fund and various other funds' financial performance for the City Council. The financial statements for the third quarter of 2024 are being provided for your consideration. Additionally, a summary of current investment and cash balances has been included. DISCUSSION: In addition to the quarterly statements, a summary of the investment portfolio and cash balances is included for review. Cash & Investments As of September 30, the market value of our investment portfolio stands at approximately $61.5 million. This reflects a difference of about $400,000 below the book value. It is important to note that, since the City’s investments are intended to be held until maturity and will earn the specified rate of interest, this discrepancy does not represent a realized loss. Investments by Sector: The City's investments consist of certificates of deposit, money market funds, municipal securities, U.S. agency bonds, and U.S. treasuries. The distribution across these sectors varies, with 7% in U.S. treasuries and 29% in money market funds. The increase in the percentage held in money markets is due to investments that matured at the end of the quarter, which were temporarily held in money market funds before being reinvested in other sectors at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Investments by Maturity Range: The portfolio’s current investment maturities do not exceed five years, with the majority maturing in less than one year. Balances by Fund: Approximately 70% of the City’s cash is held in the Enterprise and Capital Project Funds. The remaining balances are distributed across the other funds, including 14% in the General Fund. The following provides a summary of the General Fund and highlights notable items for the other funds. General Fund Page 27 of 503 The General Fund serves as the City’s main operating account. The following provides a summary of the revenue streams and significant expenditure variations for the 2024 fiscal year through September 30. Revenue The total budgeted revenue for the General Fund in 2024 is $18,884,407, including transfers. By the end of the second quarter, the City had received $12,077,196, which represents 63.95% of the annual budgeted revenue. Much of the General Fund revenue comes from property taxes. These taxes are usually paid by property owners in two installments (May and October) and collected by the county. The City receives its share from the county in June and December. Other revenue sources for the General Fund include licenses, permits, intergovernmental funds, service charges, fines, investment income, franchise fees, rental income, and miscellaneous revenues: Licenses: Revenue from liquor, beer and wine, tobacco, and massage licenses totaled $34,225 by the third quarter, accounting for 83.27% of the budgeted amount. This figure is slightly less than the previous year. Permits: Revenue from various permits, including building, plumbing, heating, electric, and right-of-way permits, reached $731,950 by the second quarter of 2024, up from $636,009 during the same period in 2023. This increase is mainly attributed to a rise in building permit revenues, which totaled $581,926. Key contributors to this growth, accounting for over 50% of total building permit revenue through the third quarter, include Lennar ($100,914), Ebert ($77,800), M/I Homes ($72,826), and DR Horton ($61,107). Intergovernmental Revenue: This includes municipal state aid (MSA) maintenance, police and fire aid, and various grants. The City has received all its MSA maintenance funds for 2024, amounting to $277,260, with the second half received in July. Additionally, during the third quarter, the City received $44,275 in Local Affordable Housing Aid. Most other intergovernmental revenues are expected to arrive later in the year. Charges for Services: These include fees for fire protection, engineering, recreation, and school resource officer (SRO) services. Significant revenues come from fire protection fees for Castle Rock, Eureka townships, and the City of Empire. A shift to billing Empire throughout the year rather than at year-end has contributed to the increase compared to 2023. Public Safety revenues also include quarterly payments from schools for SRO personnel costs. The bulk of Public Works revenue comes from engineering fees, which include Housing, Denmark as such projects fee, administration contract 3% a for from recreation and park Revenue Vermillion and Preserve, Meadowview Commons. programs, mainly offered during the summer, is lower compared to the same period last year. Fines: Fines are recorded in the month following the infraction. Current fine revenues exceed the prior year’s by approximately $5,200. IncomeInvestment includes portfolio investment City’s the from This and : earnings adjustments for market value. Investment income is currently trending higher than in 2023, based on average monthly cash balances. Rental Revenue: This consists of fees from renting the Rambling River Center (RRC), city hall space to the USDA, and fire station space to Allina Health. Franchise Fees: These fees are partially allocated to the General Fund to support city Page 28 of 503 operations, while the remainder funds the City’s cable operations. Franchise fee revenue has been declining and is approximately $12,000 lower than it was during the same period in 2023. Other Revenue: This category includes donations, asset sales, and miscellaneous revenues that are not classified elsewhere. The largest portion comes from a $123,000 reimbursement received from the USDA for work done to remodel their space. Expenditures As of the third quarter of 2024, General Fund expenditures, including transfers, have reached 73.39% of the annual budget. Below are explanations for divisions experiencing expenditures trending higher than budget: Administration: City Hall costs have exceeded the annual budget, primarily due to the USDA buildout construction costs, which total approximately $221,000. Finance & Risk Management: Expenditures are exceeding budget projections due to costs associated with professional services for developing a long-term financial plan. Increases in Risk Management are attributable to higher property and liability insurance premiums. Police: Costs are trending higher than budgeted figures due to expenditures on legal, contractual, and professional services. Recreation: to due primarily than higher budgeted, are expenditures Total slightly equipment and tool purchases, legal fees related to third-party damage, and programming expenses that are incurred early in the year rather than later. EDA, Park Improvement, and Ice Arena The EDA (Economic Development Authority), Park Improvement Fund, and Ice Arena activities have historically been of interest to the city council and therefore are included for review. EDA (Economic Development Authority): For the third quarter, EDA revenues consist of property taxes and interest income. Expenditures mainly include costs for professional services, membership fees, and marketing efforts. Park Improvement Fund: Revenues are primarily from park dedication fees related to projects at Denmark House, Meadowview Preserve, and Vermillion Commons. Excluding transfers, expenditures to date are limited to the Park Dedication study, a park bench, and a portion of the poured playground surface at Rambling River Park. Ice Arena: User fees, the main revenue source for the ice arena, are slightly less compared to the same period last year. However, operational expenditures are also lower due with a solar refund offsetting utility costs. Enterprise Funds The city operates five utility funds: liquor operations, sewer operations, storm water, water, and street lighting. Liquor Operations: The City’s benchmarks for liquor operations include a 25% gross profit margin, which both stores have met as of the end of September. The second benchmark is a 6% profit margin as a percentage of sales, with an actual figure of 8.6% through the third quarter. Sales have increased by $141,309 compared to the previous year. The downtown store accounts for two-thirds of the overall sales increase from last year, contributing more than $93,000 of the total increase, while the Pilot Knob store contributed nearly $48,000. Sewer Operations: Revenues for the Sewer fund have seen a modest increase compared to 2023, driven by higher rates. Expenses have also increased, primarily due to higher Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) fees for wastewater treatment and the purchase of a vactor truck. Storm Water: Revenues have seen a slight increase due to a rate increase and interest Page 29 of 503 earnings. Expenses have also risen slightly compared to the previous year, primarily due to IT services, insurance premiums, and the purchase of minor equipment. Water: The collection of service charges and rental income from tower leases is currently lagging behind 2023 levels. Additionally, expenses have increased due to the purchase of water meters and construction contracts. Streetlight: Revenue from streetlight fees and expenses are both trending slightly higher than in 2023. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impacts have been noted above as appropriate. ACTION REQUESTED: Review and acknowledge the financial reports for the quarter ending September 30, 2024. ATTACHMENTS: 9-Sept 2024 Financial Reports Page 30 of 503 Summary Financial Report For the Quarter Ended September 30, 2024 Investment Portfolio as of 09/30/2024 Book Value $ 61,939,818 Market Value $ 61,540,032 Unrealized Gain (Loss) ($ 399,786) Notes An unrealized loss is a decrease in the value of an investment that an investor holds. A gain or loss becomes realized when the investment is actually sold. The City’s investments in certificates of deposit, municipal securities, and government securities are not intended to be sold, but instead held to maturity earning the specified rate of interest. 16% 29% 25% 23% 7% City of Farmington Investments by Sector As of September 30, 2024 Certificates of Deposit Money Markets Municipal Securities US Agencies US Treasuries Page 31 of 503 36% 38% 17% 7% 2% City of Farmington Investments by Maturity Range As of September 30, 2024 Less than 1 Year 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years 14% 8% 4% 33% 37% 4% City of Farmington Cash Balances by Fund Type As of September 30, 2024 General Fund Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Project Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Service Funds Page 32 of 503 GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES - BUDGET TO ACTUAL 2024 2024 2024 2023 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD BUDGET PERCENT YTD REVENUE SOURCE BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL BALANCE COLLECTED ACTUAL Taxes 14,193,707$ -$ 7,377,960$ 6,815,747$ 51.98%6,898,642$ Licenses 41,100 - 34,225 6,875 83.27%37,739 Permits 737,950 53,424 731,251 6,699 99.09%636,009 Intergovernmental: Federal 5,600 - 2,000 3,600 35.71%3,720 State 734,890 - 360,930 373,960 49.11%805,041 Market Value Credit 2,500 29,936 29,936 (27,436) 1197.43%- Other 26,120 15,685 19,687 6,433 75.37%4,877 Charges for Services: General government 12,880 1,606 21,974 (9,094) 170.61%5,699 Public Safety 450,640 39,609 386,640 64,000 85.80%154,594 Public Works 47,170 2,025 213,684 (166,514) 453.01%90,014 Park and Recreation 99,240 2,676 87,054 12,186 87.72%96,830 Fines and Forfeits 55,000 6,079 45,853 9,147 83.37%40,610 Miscellaneous Revenues Investment Income 10,000 26,642 212,492 (202,492) 2124.92%145,009 Rental Income 37,600 7,246 45,809 (8,209) 121.83%38,719 Franchise Fees 120,000 - 82,728 37,272 68.94%94,473 Other 25,500 125,208 140,463 (114,963) 550.84%35,523 Transfers 2,284,510 - 2,284,510 - 100.00%1,123,301 Total 18,884,407$ 310,136$ 12,077,196$ 6,807,211$ 63.95%10,210,801$ CASH BALANCE $ 8,432,000 CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 33 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES - BUDGET TO ACTUAL 2024 2024 2024 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD BUDGET PERCENT DEPARTMENT/DIVISION BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL BALANCE EXPENDED ADMINISTRATION Legislative 116,964$ 16,558$ 83,657$ 33,307$ 71.52% Administration 651,927 71,754 454,484 197,443 69.71% Elections 60,572 134 30,174 30,398 49.82% Communications 154,958 11,223 104,850 50,108 67.66% City Hall 421,924 35,420 511,957 (90,033) 121.34% Total 1,406,345$ 135,089$ 1,185,122$ 221,223 84.27% HUMAN RESOURCES Human Resources 439,839$ 35,521$ 315,167$ 124,672$ 71.66% Total 439,839$ 35,521$ 315,167$ 124,672 71.66% FINANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT Finance 753,210$ 64,434 601,099$ 152,111$ 79.80% Risk Management 214,910 19,514 175,622 39,288 81.72% Total 968,120$ 83,947$ 776,722$ 191,398$ 80.23% POLICE Police Administration 1,529,104$ 113,910$ 1,227,290$ 301,814$ 80.26% Patrol Services 3,545,612 291,908 2,588,517 957,095 73.01% Investigations 1,112,529 52,917 569,290 543,239 51.17% Emergency Management 15,900 23 7,055 8,845 44.37% Total 6,203,145$ 458,758$ 4,392,152$ 1,810,993$ 70.81% FIRE Fire 1,795,783$ 118,000$ 1,061,173$ 734,610$ 59.09% Total 1,795,783$ 118,000$ 1,061,173$ 734,610$ 59.09% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning & Zoning 674,681$ 69,975$ 513,196$ 161,485$ 76.06% Building Inspections 771,573 50,243 498,667 272,906 64.63% Total 1,446,254$ 120,218$ 1,011,863$ 434,391$ 69.96% ENGINEERING Engineering 838,685$ 61,192$ 515,485$ 323,200$ 61.46% Natural Resources 150,995 10,359 89,100 61,895 59.01% Total 989,680$ 71,551$ 604,585$ 385,095$ 61.09% MUNICIPAL SERVICES Streets 1,690,299$ 128,015$ 1,121,537$ 568,762$ 66.35% Snow Removal 290,028 3,583 97,327 192,701 33.56% Sanitation/Recycling - 2,945 31,172 (31,172) Total 1,980,327$ 134,543$ 1,250,036$ 730,291$ 63.12% RECREATION SERVICES Park Maintenance 1,100,326$ 95,096$ 837,753$ 262,573$ 76.14% Rambling River Center 223,671 19,126 151,875 71,796 67.90% Park & Recreation Admin 260,353 25,320 196,864 63,489 75.61% Recreation Programs 201,564 18,402 158,573 42,991 78.67% Total 1,785,914$ 157,944$ 1,345,065$ 440,849$ 75.32% Transfers Out 1,869,000$ -$ 1,918,273$ (49,273)$ 102.64% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 18,884,407$ 1,315,571$ 13,860,158$ 5,024,249$ 73.39% SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 34 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES 2024 2024 2024 YTD 2023 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD PERCENT YTD BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL OF BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUES Property Taxes 150,000$ -$ 75,000$ 50.00%-$ Administration Fees - - - - Interest (Charge)1,000 1,603 10,799 1079.86%4,845 Total Revenues 151,000 1,603 85,799 56.82%4,845 EXPENDITURES Other Services & Charges 150,000 856 78,987 52.66%69,233 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 150,000 856 78,987 52.66%69,233 TRANSFERS 50,000 - 50,000 100.00%74,469 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)51,000$ 747$ 56,811$ 111.39%10,081$ CASH BALANCE 588,455$ Page 35 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES 2024 2024 2024 YTD 2023 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD PERCENT YTD BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL OF BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUES Park Dedication Fees 50,000$ -$ 502,059$ 1004.12%126,510$ Park Development Fees - - 17,506 50,801 Rental Income 7,560 - 7,836 103.65%8,560 Miscellaneous Revenue - 150 13,367 1,175 Interest (Charge)1,000 6,470 47,320 4732.03%27,118 Total Revenues 58,560 6,620 588,088 1004.25%214,164 EXPENDITURES Other Services & Charges 7,000 - 3,365 48.08%57,631 Capital Outlay - 2,804 10,397 120,650 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,000 2,804 13,762 196.60%178,281 Transfers 125,000 - 125,000 100.00%75,000 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)176,560$ 3,816$ 699,326$ 396.08%110,882$ CASH BALANCE 2,073,458$ Page 36 of 503 ICE ARENA COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES 2024 2024 2024 YTD 2023 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD PERCENT YTD BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL OF BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUES User Fees 429,500$ 32,580$ 232,950$ 54.24%236,229$ Interest 400 (54) 1,252 313.00%814 Other Revenue 16,500 - 17,197 104.22%17,289 Total Revenues 446,400 32,526 251,399 56.32%254,332 Cost of Sales - (216) (1,518) (252) TOTAL REVENUES 446,400 32,310 249,882 55.98%254,080 EXPENDITURES Personal Services 291,803 25,831 203,634 69.78%196,235 Other Services & Charges 203,248 14,801 137,695 67.75%165,721 Capital Outlay 43,000 - 23 0.05%14,668 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 538,051 40,633 341,352 63.44%376,625 TRANSFERS 20,000 - 20,000 100.00%85,243 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)(71,651)$ (8,323)$ (71,470)$ 99.75%(37,301) CASH BALANCE (17,352)$ CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 Page 37 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON MUNICIPAL LIQUOR OPERATIONS SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 DOWNTOWN PILOT KNOB TOTAL YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE SALES 2024 2,426,951$ 2,718,379$ 5,145,330$ 2023 2,333,406 2,670,615 5,004,021 $ Difference 93,545 47,764 141,309 % Difference 4.01%1.79%2.82% COST OF GOODS SOLD 1,770,483 2,002,111 3,772,595 GROSS PROFIT 656,467 716,268 1,372,735 % OF GROSS PROFIT TO SALES 27.05%26.35%26.68% OPERATING EXPENSES:- Personnel Services & Supplies 304,070 243,526 547,595 Other Services & Charges 169,275 214,511 383,786 Depreciation - - - TOTAL 473,345 458,037 931,381 Operating Income 183,123 258,231 441,354 Other Income (Loss)32,852 29,813 62,664 INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS 215,975 288,044 504,018 Profit as a % of Sales 8.58% Operating Transfers (Out)(111,987) (111,987) (223,974) NET INCOME 103,988$ 176,057$ 280,044$ CASH BALANCE Operating Cash (Pots 1 & 2)82,287$ Community Projects (Pot 3)832,278 Capital Improvements (Pot 4)641,933 1,556,498$ Page 38 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 SEWER FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES 2024 2024 2024 YTD 2023 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD PERCENT YTD BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL OF BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUES Charges for Service*3,173,870$ 426,703$ 2,242,512 70.66%1,903,320$ Interest - 5,467 51,752 45,046 Other Revenue - - 508 131,574 TOTAL REVENUES 3,173,870 432,170 2,294,772 72.30%2,079,940 EXPENSES Personnel Services 8,100 - 2,725 33.64%403 Other Services & Charges 519,240 15,868 816,894 157.32%146,766 MCES Charges **2,251,005 187,584 1,688,254 75.00%1,496,196 Depreciation 690,000 - - 0.00%- TOTAL EXPENSES 3,468,345 203,452 2,507,873 72.31%1,643,364 TRANSFERS IN/(OUT)(1,027,390) - (577,390) 56.20%(266,291) EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)(1,321,865)$ 228,718$ (790,490)$ 59.80%170,284$ FOOTNOTES: * Charges for Services are not collected on an even flow basis during the year due to the accrual of revenues year end. Wastewater sales for October, November, and December are not billed until the ** MCES wastewater charges are made on an annual and monthly basis. The budgeted amount is anticipated as the total expenditure in 2024. CASH BALANCE 1,078,837$ subsequent year, but are accrued at year end. Page 39 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 STORM WATER FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES 2024 2024 2024 YTD 2023 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD PERCENT YTD BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL OF BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUES Charges for Services*1,425,820$ 219,811$ 999,767$ 70.12%914,739$ Interest (Charge)- 10,276 78,723 47,348 TOTAL REVENUES 1,425,820 230,087 1,078,491 75.64%962,087 EXPENSES Personnel Services 1,200 - 2,640 220.01%140 Other Services & Charges 988,414 11,632 132,599 13.42%127,352 Depreciation 475,000 - - 0.00%- TOTAL EXPENSES 1,464,614 11,632 135,239 9.23%127,492 TRANSFERS IN/(OUT)(1,052,920) - (602,920) 57.26%(323,741) EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)(1,091,714)$ 218,455$ 340,332$ -31.17%510,854$ * Charges for Services are not collected on an even flow basis during the year due to the accrual of revenues year end. Storm Water sales for October, November, and December are not billed until the subsequent year, but are accrued at year end. CASH BALANCE 1,503,799$ Page 40 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 WATER FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES 2024 2024 2024 YTD 2023 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD PERCENT YTD BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL OF BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUES Charges for Service*2,312,020$ 280,347$ 1,314,671$ 56.86%1,705,639$ Interest (Charge)- 40,950 335,845 212,105 Rental Income 303,460 31,170 238,193 78.49%247,916 Other Revenue 5,000 1,120 17,495 349.89%3,259 TOTAL REVENUES 2,620,480 353,587 1,906,204 72.74%2,168,919 EXPENSES Personnel Services 16,812 411 3,473 20.66%7,605 Other Services & Charges 1,932,086 57,197 712,070 36.85%674,113 Debt Service 19,800 - 10,775 54.42%23,175 Depreciation 1,050,000 - - 0.00%- TOTAL EXPENSES 3,018,698 57,607 726,319 24.06%704,893 TRANSFERS IN/(OUT)(1,177,310) - (577,310) 49.04%(350,924) EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)(1,575,528)$ 295,979$ 602,575$ -38.25%1,113,102$ FOOTNOTES: CASH BALANCE Operating 3,291,488$ Water Treatment Plant 10,659,434$ 13,950,921$ * Charges for services are not collected on an even flow basis during the year due to the accrual of revenues at year end. Water sales for October, November, and December may not be billed until the subsequent year, but are accrued at year end. Page 41 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 STREET LIGHT FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES 2024 2024 2024 YTD 2023 ANNUAL CURRENT YTD PERCENT YTD BUDGET MONTH ACTUAL OF BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUES Charges for Services*230,000$ 24,283$ 167,570$ 72.86%159,690$ Interest (Charge)1,500 1,349 10,683 712.19%6,678 Other Revenue - - - - TOTAL REVENUES 231,500 25,632 178,253 77.00%166,368 EXPENSES Other Services & Charges 222,850 16,743 154,825 69.47%153,983 TOTAL EXPENSES 222,850 16,743 154,825 69.47%153,983 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY)8,650$ 8,889$ 23,428$ 270.84%12,386$ CASH BALANCE 2,461,488$ * Charges for services are not collected on an even flow basis during the year due to the accrual of revenues at year end. Street Light sales for October, November, and December may not be billed until the subsequent year, but are accrued at year end. Page 42 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kim Sommerland, Finance Director Department: Finance Subject: Payment of Claims Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: Attached is the list of check and electronic payments for the period of 10/16/24-10/29/2024 for approval. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve payment of claims. ATTACHMENTS: Council Summary Payment of Claims 11-04-2024 Page 43 of 503 CLAIMS FOR APPROVAL 10/16/2024-10/29/2024 CHECK PAYMENTS 538,149.85$ ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS 388,048.31$ TOTAL 926,198.16$ The City Council receives a detail list of claims paid that is available to the public upon request. CITY OF FARMINGTON SUMMARY PAYMENT OF CLAIMS November 4, 2024 Page 44 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Agreement with Action Overhead Garage Door for New Garage Doors and Openers at Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2 Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2 need new garage doors and openers. Both stations have six (6) doors that need to be replaced. DISCUSSION: Staff received two proposals to replace the existing garage doors and openers at Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2. The proposals were as follows: Action Overhead Garage Door’s proposal includes replacement of garage doors and openers and removal and recycling of existing doors. In addition to the remotes for the doors, the openers are Wi-Fi capable. The garage doors have a 10-year rust and delamination warranty, and Action Overhead Garage Door has a 1-year labor warranty. The City Attorney reviewed the attached agreement and found it to be acceptable. BUDGET IMPACT: The total cost for the new garage doors and openers at Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2 is $129,442. The funding for the new garage doors and openers will be from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the attached agreement with Action Overhead Garage Door for new garage doors and openers at Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 2. ATTACHMENTS: 2024 Agreement with Action Overhead Garage Door with Exhibit A Page 45 of 503 Page 46 of 503 AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this _________ day of ___________________, 2024, between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and ACTION OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR, a Minnesota limited liability corporation ("Contractor"). IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL UNDERTAKINGS HEREIN CONTAINED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The following documents shall be referred to as the "Contract Documents", all of which shall be taken together as a whole as the contract between the parties as if they were set verbatim and in full herein: A. This Agreement B. Contractor Proposals submitted on October 23, 2024, attached as Exhibit “A.” In the event of conflict among the provisions of the Contract Documents, the order in which they are listed above shall control in resolving any such conflicts with Contract Document "A" having the first priority and Contract Document "B" having the last priority. 2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR. The Contractor shall provide the goods, services, and perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents and in compliance with federal, state, and local laws. 3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY. The City shall pay the Contractor in accordance with the bid and inclusive of sales tax. 4. SOFTWARE LICENSE. If the equipment provided by the Contractor pursuant to this Contract contains software, including that which the manufacturer may have embedded into the hardware as an integral part of the equipment, the Contractor shall pay all software licensing fees. The Contractor shall also pay for all software updating fees for a period of one year following cutover. The Contractor shall have no obligation to pay for such fees thereafter. Nothing in the software license or licensing agreement shall obligate the City to pay any additional fees as a condition for continuing to use the software. 5. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign, sublet, or transfer any interest or obligation in this Contract without the prior written consent of the other party, and then only upon such terms and conditions as both parties may agree to and set forth in writing. 6. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Contractor shall complete its obligations for the project on or before January 31, 2025. Page 47 of 503 2 7. PAYMENT. a. The not to exceed costs are as follows for the respective garage door installation sites: Fire Station 1: $50,142 Fire Station 2: $79,300 b. When the Contractor receives the supplies, the Contractor shall submit photos of the supplies to the City. Within 30 days of receipt of these photos, the City shall submit 50% of the not to exceed payment amount to the Contractor. Contractor shall provide monthly invoices for the remaining costs. The final payment shall be paid to Contractor within 30 days of the completion of the installation. c. No final payment shall be made under this Contract until Contractor has satisfactorily established compliance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Section 290.92. A certificate from the commissioner shall satisfy this requirement with respect to the Contractor or any subcontractor. 8. CONTRACTOR’S REPRESENTATIONS. a. Contractor has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents and other related data identified in the contract documents. b. Contractor has visited the site and become familiar with and is satisfied to the general, local, and Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the work. c. Contractor is familiar with and is satisfied as to all federal, state, and local laws and regulations that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the work. d. Contractor has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for doing so) all additional or supplementary examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data concerning conditions at or contiguous to the site which may affect cost, progress, or performance of the work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor, including any specific means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction expressly required by the Bidding Documents, and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. e. Contractor does not consider that any further examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, or data are necessary for the performance of the work at the Contract price, within the time of performance, and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. f. Contractor has correlated the information known to Contractor, information and observations obtained from visits to the Site, reports and drawings identified in the Contract Documents, and all additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data with the Contract Documents. Page 48 of 503 3 g. The Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of the work. 9. EXTRA SERVICES. No claim will be honored for compensation for extra services or beyond the scope of this Agreement or the not-to-exceed price for the services identified in the proposal without written submittal by the Contractor, and approval of an amendment by the City, with specific estimates of type, time, and maximum costs, prior to commencement of the work. 10. PROMPT PAYMENT TO SUBCONTRACTORS. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.25, Subdivision 4a, the Contractor must pay any subcontractor within ten (10) days of the Contractor’s receipt of payment from the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The Contractor must pay interest of one and one-half percent (1½ %) per month or any part of a month to subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than $100.00, the Contractor shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from the Contractor shall be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing the action. 11. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. The Contractor, at is expense, shall procure and maintain in force for the duration of this Agreement the following minimum insurance coverages: a. General Liability. The Contractor agrees to maintain Commercial General Liability insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, products-completed operations, personal injury, advertising injury, and contractually assumed liability. The City including its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents, shall be endorsed as additional insured. b. Automobile Liability. If the Contractor operates a motor vehicle in performing the Services under this Agreement, the Contractor shall maintain Business Automobile Liability Insurance, including owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum liability limit of $1,000,000, combined single limit. c. Workers’ Compensation. The Contractor shall maintain Workers’ Compensation insurance Workers’ Compensation insurance for all its employees in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota. The Contractor shall also carry Employers’ Liability Coverage with minimum limits are as follows: • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease per employee • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease aggregate • $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Accident d. The Contractor shall, prior to commencing the Services, deliver to the City a Certificate of Insurance as evidence that the above coverages are in full force and effect. e. The insurance requirements may be met through any combination of primary and Page 49 of 503 4 umbrella/excess insurance. The City must be named as an additional insured on any umbrella/excess policy. f. The Contractor’s policies shall be primary insurance and non-contributory to any other valid and collectible insurance available to the City with respect to any claim arising out of the Contractor’s performance under this Agreement. g. The Contractor’s policies and Certificate of Insurance shall contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days’ advanced written notice to the City, or ten (10) days’ written notice for non-payment of premium. h. Contractor agrees to maintain all coverage required herein throughout the term of the Agreement and for a minimum of two (2) years following. 12. MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. Contractor must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to (1) all data provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement, and (2) all data, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor is subject to all the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, including but not limited to the civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, as if it were a government entity. In the event Contractor receives a request to release data, Contractor must immediately notify City. City will give Contractor instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims resulting from Contractor’s officers’, agents’, city’s, partners’, employees’, volunteers’, assignees’ or subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 13. RECORDS. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records of expenses involved in the performance of services. 14. WARRANTY. The Contractor guarantees that all new equipment warranties as specified within the bid shall be in full force and transferred to the City upon payment by the City. The Contractor shall be held responsible for any and all defects in workmanship, materials, and equipment which may develop in any part of the contracted service, and upon proper notification by the City shall immediately replace, without cost to the City, any such faulty part or parts and damage done by reason of the same in accordance with the bid specifications. The Contractor further warrants to the City that all goods and services furnished under the Contract will be in conformance with Contract Documents and that the goods are of merchantable quality and are fit for the use for which they are sold. This warranty is in addition to any manufacturer's standard warranty, and any warranty provided by law. 15. NONDISCRIMINATION. All Contractors and subcontractors employed shall comply with all applicable provisions of all federal, state and municipal laws which prohibit discrimination in employment to members of a protected class and all rules and regulations, promulgated and adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor will include a similar provision in all subcontracts entered into for the performance of this contract. Page 50 of 503 5 16.INDEMNIFICATION. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor agrees to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, expenses, or causes of action, including attorney fees of whatever nature or character, arising from the Contractor’s negligence or the Contractor’s performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Contractor shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of all its employees on the site and shall provide reasonable protection to prevent damage or loss to the property on the site or properties adjacent thereto and to work, materials and equipment under the Contractor’s control. The Contractor’s indemnification obligation shall apply to the Contractor’s subcontractor(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by the Contractor, or anyone for whose acts the Contractor may be liable. The Contractor agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 17.WAIVER. In the particular event that either party shall at any time or times waive any breach of this Contract by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any other or any succeeding breach of this Contract by either party, whether of the same or any other covenant, condition, or obligation. 18.GOVERNING LAW. The laws of the State of Minnesota govern the interpretation of this Contract. 19.SEVERABILITY. If any provision, term, or condition of this Contract is found to be or become unenforceable or invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions, terms, and conditions of this Contract, unless such invalid or unenforceable provision, term, or condition renders this Contract impossible to perform. Such remaining terms and conditions of the Contract shall continue in full force and effect and shall continue to operate as the parties' entire contract. 20.ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Contract represents the entire agreement of the parties and is a final, complete, and all-inclusive statement of the terms thereof, and supersedes and terminates any prior agreement(s), understandings, or written or verbal representations made between the parties with respect thereto. 21.TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by the City for any reason or for convenience upon written notice to the Contractor. In the event of termination, the City shall be obligated to the Contractor for payment of amounts due and owing for materials provided or for services performed or furnished to the date and time of termination. Dated: ______________, 2024 CITY OF FARMINGTON By: _________________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Page 51 of 503 6 By: _________________________________ Dated: ______________, 2024 Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk CONTRACTOR: ACTION OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR By: _________________________________ Its: __________________________________ Page 52 of 503 18077 Murphy Lake Blvd. Prior Lake, MN 55372 952.447.4487 Estimate 100170498 Job Estimate Date 10/23/2024 Billing Address Farmington Parks & Facilities 430 3rd Street Farmington, MN 55024 USA Job Address Farmington Fire Station 21625 Denmark Avenue Farmington, MN 55024 USA Estimate Details - Service #Description Quantity Your Price Your Total ESTIMATE DOOR 12'2" x 12'. Wayne Dalton. Model TS150. 2-sided steel insulated door. 2 windows in 3rd section, insulated clear glass. White color door. New standard track & wind load hardware. 6.00 $6,545.00 $39,270.00 OCLMTDC12S1BMC 1 TDC12S1BMC LIFTMASTER TROLLEY OPENER. 1 REMOTE. (all electrical wiring done by others) 5.00 $1,857.00 $9,285.00 T/H 1 REMOVAL & RECYCLING OF EXISTING DOORS.6.00 $252.00 $1,512.00 REHOOK 1 REHOOK GARAGE DOOR OPENER 1.00 $75.00 $75.00 Sub-Total $50,142.00 Tax $0.00 Total $50,142.00 Thank you for choosing Action Overhead Garage Door Terms & Conditions By accepting an estimate from Action Overhead Garage Door, LLC (the “Contractor”), “Customer” (defined as a homeowner, builder, or other contractor) acknowledges and agrees to the following terms and conditions. Site Conditions – Prior to Installation Date Garage area must be cleared from the opening to the rear of the operator head. If a technician must move any items from their workspace or must wait for Customer to move items, there will be an additional fee, or the installation may have to be rescheduled. Additionally, concrete floor must be in, openings must be properly prepared, and electrical wiring must be completed. Estimates - Any estimate provided to Customer is valid for thirty (30) calendar days from the date of issuance. After the expiration of the 30-day period, Customer will be required to obtain a new estimate. Payment Terms - A down payment of 50% is required with the balance being due upon completion. Special orders are non-refundable. Surcharge on Credit Card Payment - A surcharge of 3% will be added if you choose to pay your invoice with a credit card. Delinquent Account - If a delinquent account is turned over for collection, Customer will be responsible for all costs incurred, including, but not limited to, collection agency fees, attorney fees, and court costs. Any invoice not paid within 30 days may be subject to a finance charge up to the maximum rate allowed by law until paid. Warranty Installation services are guaranteed for one-year. Product warranty is specific to manufacturer. Exhibit A Page 53 of 503 18077 Murphy Lake Blvd. Prior Lake, MN 55372 952.447.4487 Estimate 100171558 Job Estimate Date 10/23/2024 Billing Address Farmington Parks & Facilities 430 3rd Street Farmington, MN 55024 USA Job Address Fire Station 19695 Municipal Drive Farmington, MN 55024 USA Estimate Details - Service #Description Quantity Your Price Your Total ESTIMATE DOOR 14'2" x 14'. Haas Door. Model 2016. 2" thick 2-sided steel insulated door. Full vision glass section in 3rd section. White color. New high lift track & wind load hardware. 6.00 $10,840.00 $65,040.00 OCLMJHDC12S1BMC 1 JHDC12S1BMC, LIFTMASTER JACKSHAFT, CHAIN HOIST, 1200LBS. 1 REMOTE. (all electrical wiring done by others) 5.00 $2,287.00 $11,435.00 T/H 1 REMOVAL & RECYCLING OF EXISTING DOORS 6.00 $450.00 $2,700.00 REHOOK 1 REHOOK GARAGE DOOR OPENER 1.00 $125.00 $125.00 Sub-Total $79,300.00 Tax $0.00 Total $79,300.00 Thank you for choosing Action Overhead Garage Door Terms & Conditions By accepting an estimate from Action Overhead Garage Door, LLC (the “Contractor”), “Customer” (defined as a homeowner, builder, or other contractor) acknowledges and agrees to the following terms and conditions. Site Conditions – Prior to Installation Date Garage area must be cleared from the opening to the rear of the operator head. If a technician must move any items from their workspace or must wait for Customer to move items, there will be an additional fee, or the installation may have to be rescheduled. Additionally, concrete floor must be in, openings must be properly prepared, and electrical wiring must be completed. Estimates - Any estimate provided to Customer is valid for thirty (30) calendar days from the date of issuance. After the expiration of the 30-day period, Customer will be required to obtain a new estimate. Payment Terms - A down payment of 50% is required with the balance being due upon completion. Special orders are non-refundable. Surcharge on Credit Card Payment - A surcharge of 3% will be added if you choose to pay your invoice with a credit card. Delinquent Account - If a delinquent account is turned over for collection, Customer will be responsible for all costs incurred, including, but not limited to, collection agency fees, attorney fees, and court costs. Any invoice not paid within 30 days may be subject to a finance charge up to the maximum rate allowed by law until paid. Warranty Installation services are guaranteed for one-year. Product warranty is specific to manufacturer. Page 54 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Donation of a Bench for Downtown from Farmington High School Marching Band Senior Class of 2025 Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: A new bench for downtown was donated by the Farmington High School (FHS) Marching Band Senior Class of 2025. DISCUSSION: The FHS Marching Band Senior Class of 2025 donated a bench for downtown. The bench was a gift to their band directors, Erin Holmes and Bradley Mariska. They requested the bench be installed on the Dew Days parade route, which it has been. The value of the bench is $2,804. Staff will communicate the City’s appreciation on behalf of the City Council to the FHS Marching Band Senior Class of 2025 for this generous donation. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt Resolution 2024-93 Accepting a Donation of a Bench for Downtown from the Farmington High School Marching Band Senior Class of 2025, valued at $2,804. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-93 Accepting Bench from FHS Marching Band Senior Class of 2025 Page 55 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-93 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION OF A BENCH FOR DOWNTOWN FROM THE FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING BAND SENIOR CLASS OF 2025 WHEREAS, the City of Farmington is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens and is specifically authorized to accept gifts, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the following persons and entities have offered to contribute to the City: The Farmington High School Marching Band Senior Class of 2025 has donated a bench for downtown valued at $2,804; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept this donation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Hoyt and the Farmington City Council hereby accept with gratitude the generous donation of a bench for downtown valued at $2,804 from the Farmington High School Marching Band Senior Class of 2025. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 4th day of November 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 56 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Kellee Omlid, Parks & Recreation Director Department: Parks & Recreation Subject: Second Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County for Pilot Knob Road Trail Preliminary Design Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: At the July 17, 2023 City Council meeting, a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Bolton & Menk for preliminary design for the Pilot Knob Road trail was approved. In addition, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Dakota County for this preliminary design along with the cost share was approved. The original scope of the project and JPA didn’t include a pedestrian underpass evaluation. Thus, a First Amendment to the JPA was approved by City Council on May 6, 2024. DISCUSSION: Preliminary design for the Pilot Knob Road trail included a connector trail missing segment on the west side of the road south of 197th Street and a trail on the east side of the road from Highway 50 (CSAH 50) to 195th Street (CR 64). The kickoff meeting was held in late July, which included reviewing existing conditions, project goals, and design criteria. Two trail layouts were presented to Dakota County and City Staff to discuss the pros and cons of each alignment to develop a final layout to present to the public at an open house. Based on the discussion and feedback, one updated layout was shared at an open house on January 30, 2024. Following the open house, City and County Staff met with Bolton & Menk to discuss the comments we heard at the open house and determine if there were any that warranted an in-depth exploration prior to beginning the feasibility report. Several comments included trail users desire to cross Pilot Knob Road outside of the controlled intersection at CSAH 50 and the roundabout at CR 64. These trail users were crossing Pilot Knob Road at 206th Street, 203rd Street, and 197th Street. City and County Staff agreed it was important to explore crossing improvements on Pilot Knob Road. The Staff member from Dakota County on this project visited with the county’s Traffic Engineer about using the county’s pedestrian crossing analysis tool for at-grade crossings on Pilot Knob Road. Due to the speeds, multiple lanes of traffic at the intersections, and right and left turn lanes in addition to the through lanes, the County does not have any solutions they would recommend to improve safety for crossing at grade. In addition, the traffic volumes on the side streets are too low to justify a traffic signal currently. Thus, only a grade separated crossing in the form of a pedestrian underpass should be evaluated. As mentioned, the original scope of the project and JPA didn’t include a pedestrian underpass evaluation. Bolton & Menk developed a proposal to complete the pedestrian underpass evaluation, Page 57 of 503 which included evaluation of the portion of trail along Pilot Knob Road between 197th Street and 203rd Street where existing geometry and evaluations lends itself to be the best fit for the underpass. A preliminary structural analysis was performed on the recommended underpass layout to verify the resulting configuration can support county vehicle loads or if additional support is needed and a preliminary construction cost estimate was developed for the underpass. Matt Blazer from Bolton & Menk presented the Pilot Knob Road trail preliminary design and feasibility report at the September 3, 2024, City Council meeting. The presentation included the proposed trails, pedestrian underpass evaluation results, and estimated construction costs. The pedestrian underpass between 197th Street and 203rd Street poses cost and feasibility challenges. However, feedback on the trails was positive and direction was to continue exploring a pedestrian underpass along the route and how the project could be staged and corresponding construction cost estimates for each stage. City and County Staff agreed it was important to explore additional locations for a pedestrian underpass as it is a priority for the project. In addition, to better identify available funding and understand the cost and to prioritize segments of the trail a phasing analysis is critical. Bolton & Menk developed a proposal to re-evaluate the project corridor for underpass locations and trail approaches. Of the remaining areas, up to two additional locations will be recommended for further evaluation and preliminary layout. Bolton & Menk will provide a recommendation and preliminary construction cost estimate for the underpass. A trail phasing analysis will also be completed under this new project scope. The attached Second Amendment to the JPA addresses the preliminary engineering of a potential grade separate pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Pilot Knob Road between Middle Creek and 197th Street. It also includes a trail phasing analysis, which includes how the trail could be divided into smaller segments with an updated opinion of probable costs with the cost of each trail segment identified in the event construction of the trail in its entirety isn’t completed in a single project. The City Attorney reviewed the Second Amendment to the JPA and found it to be acceptable. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost for the additional pedestrian underpass evaluation and trail phasing analysis is $8,948. The cost of these additional professional services Bolton & Menk will be providing to the City and County will be shared with the City contributing $1,342 (15%) and the County contributing $7,606 (85%). Funding for the project will be out of the Trail Maintenance Fund. The City will pay Bolton & Menk for the services and will bill the County for their share of the pedestrian underpass evaluation. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the attached Second Amendment to the JPA with Dakota County for the Pilot Knob Road trail preliminary design. ATTACHMENTS: Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement with Dakota County Page 58 of 503 230740v1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND DAKOTA COUNTY THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) dated as of October 11, 2024 by and between the City of Farmington, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and Dakota County, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“County”) (collectively, the “Parties”), both of which are parties to the Joint Powers Agreement. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Joint Powers Agreement dated August 24, 2023 (“Agreement”) in order to conduct preliminary engineering to develop the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 31 (Pilot Knob Road) trail from CSAH 50 to County Road (CR) 64 (195th St), Dakota County, (the “Project”); WHEREAS, the Parties amended the Agreement on May 14, 2024 (First Amendment) to expand the scope of the preliminary engineering to include the potential location and cost of a pedestrian and bicycle grade separated crossing on CSAH 31 between 197th Street and 203rd Street; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to expand the scope of the preliminary engineering to include analysis of up to two additional underpass locations with a preferred underpass location to be incorporated into the 30 percent design plans; WHEREAS, the parties desire to expand the scope to also include a phasing analysis to divide the trail and underpass scope of work into various segments with cost estimates that allow for logical project phasing and construction based on available budgets; WHEREAS, such an expansion requires a modification of the cost share formula and modification of the anticipated completion date; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to expand the scope of the Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 1.Amendment to Paragraph 3 of the Agreement. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 3.Cost Share. The City and the County shall divide the project costs for the preliminary engineering according to County policy F.1, Cost Participation – Roadway: Trail and sidewalks along county highways as deemed necessary by the County for safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles in the highway right-of-way: Notwithstanding the County policies the costs for preliminary engineering shall be divided as follows: •The County shall be responsible for 85% of all project costs, •The City of Farmington shall be responsible for 15% of the project costs Dakota County Contract #DCA20524.2 Page 59 of 503 2 230740v1 Expenses incurred under this Agreement are estimated to be $123,629 identified from all parties. Per County policy F.1, Cost Participation – Roadway, the County’s share is estimated at $105,085 (85%) and the City’s share is estimated at $18,544 (15%). 2.Amendment to Paragraph 6 of the Agreement. Paragraph 6 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 6.Plans and Specifications. A consulting firm shall be selected by the County and the City as the consulting engineering firm to perform the Preliminary Engineering. The anticipated completion date of the Preliminary Engineering is March 31, 2025. 3.Incorporation. Except as provided herein, all terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The changes indicated in this Amendment shall be incorporated into the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the dates indicated below. CITY OF FARMINGTON RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Date Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Date (SEAL) COUNTY OF DAKOTA RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: _______________________________ By: ____________________________ County Engineer Date Physical Development Director Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Joseph Marek 10/18/24 Assistant County Attorney/Date KS-23-410-2 COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION: No. 23-075 Date: February 28, 2023 Dakota County Contract #DCA20524.2 Page 60 of 503 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: John Powell, Public Works Director Department: Engineering Subject: Professional Services Agreement with Barr Engineering for the Well No. 10 Siting Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: In February of 2021, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) authorized an amendment of the City’s DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1959-0725 to authorize the use of Well No. 9. In addition, the withdrawal of up to 1,000 million gallons of water per year for municipal/public water supply was authorized. The City’s recent water use, as identified in the annual report to the DNR, was as follows: 2023 834,984,000 Gallons 2022 810,939,011 Gallons 2021 824,915,341 Gallons 2020 749,989,000 Gallons Table 1 of the Groundwater Technical Review prepared by the DNR and dated November 12, 2020, refers to Well No.10 as “to be installed." At the time, it was expected that the City would be able to supply expected growth with no annual volume change to the DNR appropriation permit until about 2027. Based the expected growth identified through the comprehensive planning process, as the City has initiated the process of decommissioning Well No.1, and due to the lengthy process for approving a new well, we recommend the process for siting Well No.10 be initiated. DISCUSSION: In 2018, Barr Engineering assisted the City in siting Well No. 9, as documented in the attached memo dated July 30, 2018. On February 21, 2023, the City Council approved the Consultant Pool for 2023-2027. Barr Engineering is one of the firms in the consultant pool and has prepared the attached scope and budget based on discussions with City staff regarding this project. This scope and budget builds upon their past efforts in siting Well No. 9. As identified in the cost breakdown, major steps in the process include: Review existing information. Facilitate a kickoff meeting with City Staff. Conduct preliminary groundwater modeling. Facilitate an aquifer selection meeting with the DNR. Preparation of a design basis memorandum identifying the City's requirements and preferences related to site selection, then meet to review same. Identify and visit potential well sites which meet the MDH setbacks; identify a well site. Delineate the preliminary wellhead protection area. Page 61 of 503 Prepare a DNR Well Construction Assessment Form for DNR use in preparing a Preliminary Well Construction Assessment (PWCA). As stated in the proposed works scope, "in the PWCA, the DNR will not approve aquifer selection or guarantee that Well 10 can be permitted. Actual approval of the aquifer will not occur until after a test pump of the well itself (sometimes DNR approval is withheld until the well is connected to the water supply system)." The final DNR approval process may take two years or more to complete. BUDGET IMPACT: The detailed work scope and budget are attached as part of the Professional Services Agreement. The estimated not to exceed amount for this work effort is $43,000. The Water Board reviewed the proposed scope and budget at their October 28, 2024 meeting and recommends approval by the City Council. ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Barr Engineering for the Well No. 10 Siting for an estimated cost of $43,000. ATTACHMENTS: 110424 PSA Barr Well 10 Siting Page 62 of 503 224345v1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made this 4th day of November, 2024, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation, whose business address is 430 3rd St, Farmington, MN 55024 (hereinafter "City") and Barr Engineering Co., a Minnesota Corporation, whose business address is 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 (hereinafter "Engineer"). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the provision of professional services by Engineer for engineering services, hereinafter referred to as the "Work", and as outlined on Exhibit “A” attached hereto. IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. The City retains Engineer to furnish the services set forth on the attached Exhibit “A”. The Engineer agrees to perform the services. Engineer shall provide all personnel, supervision, services, materials, tools, equipment and supplies and do all things necessary and ancillary thereto specified on Exhibit “A”. The Work to be performed under this Agreement shall be done under the review of a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota, who shall attest that the Work will be performed in compliance with all applicable codes and engineering standards. The Work shall be performed in accordance with the Contract Documents, which includes this Agreement and the attached Exhibits: Exhibit “A” – Scope of Services, Exhibit “B” – Schedule of Payment and Fee Schedule. In the event any ambiguity or conflict between the Contract Documents listed above, the order of precedence shall be the following order: (i) this Agreement; (ii) Exhibit “A”, (iii) Exhibit “B”. 2. REPRESENTATIVES. City has designated John Powell, Public Works Director/City Engineer (the “City Representative”), and the Engineer has designated Brian LeMon, Vice President (the “Engineer Representative”). The City Representative and the Engineer Representative shall be available as often as is reasonably necessary for reviewing the Services and Work to be performed. 3. COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. Engineer shall be paid by the City for the services described in Exhibit “A” on an hourly basis in accordance with the attached fee schedule, Exhibit “B”, but not to exceed $43,000 inclusive of taxes and reimbursable costs. A. Any changes in the scope of the Work which may result in an increase to the compensation due the Engineer shall require prior written approval by the Page 63 of 503 224345v1 authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for services that do not have prior written authorization. B. Special Consultants may be utilized by the Engineer when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Project and when authorized in writing by the City. 4. COMPLETION DATE/TERM. The Engineer must complete the Services by December 31, 2025. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. 5. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports and information generated in connection with the performance of the Agreement (“Information”) shall become the property of the City, but Engineer may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. The City may use the Information for its purposes and the Engineer also may use the Information for its purposes. Use of the Information for the purposes of the project contemplated by this Agreement does not relieve any liability on the part of the Engineer, but any use of the Information by the City or the Engineer beyond the scope of the Project is without liability to the other, and the party using the Information agrees to defend and indemnify the other from any claims or liability resulting therefrom. 6. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS. In providing services hereunder, Engineer shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation of statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the Services to be provided shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. Engineer’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices related to services provided to the City are subject to examination by the legislative auditor or the state auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years. 7. STANDARD OF CARE. Engineer shall exercise the same degrees of care, skill, and diligence in the performance of the Services as is ordinarily possessed and exercised by a professional engineer under similar circumstances. Engineer shall be liable to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, without limitation, for any injuries, loss, or damages proximately caused by Engineer’s breach of this standard of care. Engineer shall put forth reasonable efforts to complete its duties in a timely manner. Engineer shall not be responsible for delays caused by factors beyond its control or that could not be reasonably foreseen at the time of execution of this Agreement. Engineer shall be responsible for costs, delays, or damages arising from unreasonable delays in the performance of its duties. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is included in this Agreement. City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies in the accuracy of Engineer’s services. 8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Engineer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees, of and from any and all judgments, claims, damages, demands, actions, causes of action, including costs and attorney's fees paid or incurred resulting from any breach of this Agreement by Engineer, its agents, contractors and employees, or any Page 64 of 503 224345v1 negligent or intentional act or omission performed, taken or not performed or taken by Engineer, its agents, contractors and employees, relative to this Agreement. City will indemnify and hold Engineer harmless from and against any loss for injuries or damages arising out of the negligent acts of the City, its officers, agents, or employees. 9. INSURANCE. a. General Liability. Prior to starting the Work, Engineer shall procure, maintain, and pay for such insurance as will protect against claims or loss which may arise out of operations by Engineer or by any subcontractor or by anyone employed by any of them or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such insurance shall include, but not be limited to, minimum coverages and limits of liability specified in this Paragraph, or required by law. b. Engineer shall procure and maintain the following minimum insurance coverages and limits of liability for the Work: Worker’s Compensation Statutory Limits Employer’s Liability $500,000 each accident $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 disease each employee Commercial General Liability $2,000,000 property damage and bodily injury per occurrence $2,000,000 general aggregate Comprehensive Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit each accident (shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed vehicles.) Commercial General Liability requirements may be met through a combination of umbrella or excess liability insurance. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the general liability and umbrella policies. c. Professional Liability Insurance. In addition to the coverages listed above, Engineer shall maintain a professional liability insurance policy in the amount of $2,000,000. Said policy need not name the City as an additional insured. Page 65 of 503 224345v1 d. Engineer shall maintain “stop gap” coverage if Engineer obtains Workers’ Compensation coverage from any state fund if Employer’s liability coverage is not available. e. All policies, except the Worker’s Compensation Policy, Automobile Policy, and Professional Liability Policy, shall name the “City of Farmington” as an additional insured. f. All policies, except the Professional Liability Policy, shall apply on a “per project” basis. g. All polices shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City. h. All policies, except for the Worker’s Compensation Policy and the Professional Liability Policy, shall be primary and non-contributory. i. All polices, except the Worker’s Compensation Policy, shall insure the defense and indemnity obligations assumed by Engineer under this Agreement. j. Engineer agrees to maintain all coverage required herein throughout the term of the Agreement and for a minimum of two (2) years following City’s written acceptance of the Work. k. It shall be Engineer’s responsibility to pay any retention or deductible for the coverages required herein. l. The Engineer’s policies and Certificate of Insurance shall contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days advanced written notice to the City. m. Engineer shall maintain in effect all insurance coverages required under this Paragraph at Engineer’s sole expense and with insurance companies licensed to do business in the state in Minnesota and having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A-, unless specifically accepted by City in writing and all insurance policies shall be on ISO forms acceptable to the City. n. A copy of the Engineer’s Certificate of Insurance which evidences the compliance with this Paragraph, must be filed with City prior to the start of Engineer’s Work. Upon request a copy of the Engineer’s insurance declaration page, rider and/or endorsement, as applicable shall be provided. Such documents evidencing insurance shall be in a form acceptable to City and shall provide satisfactory evidence that Engineer has complied with all insurance requirements. Renewal certificates shall be provided to City prior to the expiration date of any of the required policies. City will not be obligated, however, to review such Certificate of Insurance, declaration page, rider, endorsement, certificates, or other evidence of insurance, or to advise Engineer of any deficiencies in such documents and Page 66 of 503 224345v1 receipt thereof shall not relieve Engineer from, nor be deemed a waiver of, City’s right to enforce the terms of Engineer’s obligations hereunder. City reserves the right to examine any policy provided for under this Agreement. o. Effect of Engineer’s Failure to Provide Insurance. If Engineer fails to provide the specified insurance, then Engineer will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, the City's officials, agents, and employees from any loss, claim, liability, and expense (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of litigation) to the extent necessary to afford the same protection as would have been provided by the specified insurance. Except to the extent prohibited by law, this indemnity applies regardless of any strict liability or negligence attributable to the City (including sole negligence) and regardless of the extent to which the underlying occurrence (i.e., the event giving rise to a claim which would have been covered by the specified insurance) is attributable to the negligent or otherwise wrongful act or omission (including breach of contract) of Engineer, its subcontractors, agents, employees or delegates. Engineer agrees that this indemnity shall be construed and applied in favor of indemnification. Engineer also agrees that if applicable law limits or precludes any aspect of this indemnity, then the indemnity will be considered limited only to the extent necessary to comply with that applicable law. The stated indemnity continues until all applicable statutes of limitation have run. If a claim arises within the scope of the stated indemnity in section o, the City may require Engineer to: i. Furnish and pay for a surety bond, satisfactory to the City, guaranteeing performance of the indemnity obligation; or ii. Furnish a written acceptance of tender of defense and indemnity from Engineer's insurance company. Engineer will take the action required by the City within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice from the City. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The City hereby retains the Engineer as an independent contractor upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. The Engineer is not an employee of the City and is free to contract with other entities as provided herein. Engineer shall be responsible for selecting the means and methods of performing the work. Engineer shall furnish any and all supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary for Engineer's performance under this Agreement. City and Engineer agree that Engineer shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Engineer or any of Engineer's agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City. Engineer shall be exclusively responsible under this Agreement for Engineer's own FICA payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment compensation payments, withholding amounts, and/or self-employment taxes if any such payments, amounts, or taxes are required to be paid by law or regulation. 11. SUBCONTRACTORS. Engineer shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Engineer shall comply with Minnesota Statute § 471.425. Engineer must pay subcontractor for all undisputed Page 67 of 503 224345v1 services provided by subcontractor within ten (10) days of Engineer’s receipt of payment from City. Engineer must pay interest of 1.5 percent per month or any part of a month to subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. 12. ASSIGNMENT AND THIRD PARTIES. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. Nothing under this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in this Agreement to anyone other than the City and Engineer, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City and Engineer and not for the benefit of any other party. 13. WAIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 15. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. All proceedings related to this contract shall be venued in the Dakota County District Court. 16. COPYRIGHT. Engineer shall defend actions or claims charging infringement of any copyright or patent by reason of the use or adoption of any designs, drawings, or specifications supplied by it, and it shall hold harmless the City from loss or damage resulting therefrom. 17. RECORDS. The Engineer shall maintain complete and accurate records of time and expense involved in the performance of services. 18. MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. Engineer must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to (1) all data provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement, and (2) all data, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Engineer pursuant to this Agreement. Engineer is subject to all the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, including but not limited to the civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, as if it were a government entity. In the event Engineer receives a request to release data, Engineer must immediately notify City. City will give Engineer instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. Engineer agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims resulting from Engineer’s officers’, agents’, partners’, employees’, volunteers’, assignees’, or subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. Page 68 of 503 224345v1 19. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by City on thirty (30) days’ written notice delivered to Engineer at the address on file with the City. Upon termination under this provision if there is no fault of the Engineer, the Engineer shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If the City terminates the Agreement because the Engineer has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Engineer, and the City may retain another engineer to undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. 20. NON-DISCRIMINATION. During the performance of this Agreement, the Engineer shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The Engineer shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non- discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Engineer shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. The Engineer further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 21. SURVIVAL. All express representations, waivers, indemnifications, and limitations of liability included in this Agreement will survive its completion or termination for any reason. 22. SERVICES NOT PROVIDED FOR. Claims for services furnished by the Engineer not specifically provided for herein shall not be honored by the City. 23. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 24. CONFLICTS. No officer or salaried employee of the City and no member of the Council of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. The violation of this provision renders the Agreement void. 25. NOTICES. Any notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the appropriate party at its address on the signature page and given personally, by facsimile, by registered or certified mail postage prepaid, or by a commercial courier service. All notices shall be effective upon the date of receipt. 26. WAIVER. A party’s non-enforcement of any provision shall not constitute a waiver of that provision, nor shall it affect the enforceability of that provision or of the remainder of this Agreement. Page 69 of 503 224345v1 27. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. Dated: November 4, 2024 CITY: CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Joshua Hoyt Mayor By: Shirley R Buecksler City Clerk Dated:__________________, 20___ ENGINEER: BARR ENGINEERING By: _____________________________ [print name] Its __________________________ [title] Page 70 of 503 224345v1 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES Page 71 of 503 barr.com 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 | 952.832.2600 October 16, 2024 John Powell, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Farmington 430 Third St. Farmington, MN 55024 Re: Well 10 Siting and Design Services Proposal Dear Mr. Powell: Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) is pleased to provide the City of Farmington (City) with a proposal to provide well siting services for Well 10. This proposal is based on conversations with you during our August 14 call as well as an email dated September 25, 2024. The remainder of this proposal is organized into the following sections: • Project understanding • Scope of work • Project team • Schedule • Estimated fee Project Understanding The City plans to add Well 10 to its water supply system to meet existing and future water demands. Well 10 needs to be sited to start the permitting process with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The City has requested a well siting study to identify a location for the new well. The project will evaluate sites considered during previous work related to the siting of Well 9 as a starting point as well as other sites owned, or suggested, by the City. Well siting will consider proximity to the City’s water distribution system, future planned infrastructure (e.g., a centralized water treatment plant), well setbacks required by the Minnesota Well Code, aquifer sustainability analysis, and other criteria that may come out of discussions with City staff. In addition, the aquifer from which Well 10 will pump must also be evaluated. Groundwater withdrawals in the state are receiving scrutiny relative to their potential to interfere with existing wells and to impact surface water features such as lakes, streams, and groundwater-dependent wetlands. Recent court cases have resulted in the DNR placing a greater burden of proof upon those requesting permits for high- capacity wells to show the proposed wells will not adversely interfere with existing wells or impact surface water features. This proposal is based upon Well 10 being located at one of the sites previously considered for Well 9, with an option to consider two additional sites. It is assumed Well 10 will be drilled into the Jordan Sandstone (Jordan) aquifer. This work does NOT include any design or bidding services. Page 72 of 503 John Powell, PE October 16, 2024 Page 2 G:\BKL\Minnesota Clients\Farmington\Well 10\Farmington Well 10 Siting Proposal letter FINAL to city.docx Scope of Work Our proposed scope of work includes three phases: project kickoff, constraints and criteria, and well siting. These phases are described in greater detail below. Project Kickoff Objective: Confirm project scope and desired outcomes. Task Description: Upon receiving a notice to proceed Barr will request and/or review existing information that will help inform subsequent tasks. This task will include, but not be limited to: • Review previous Jordan aquifer well siting work related to Well 9 performed for the City. • Review the City’s most recent DNR Water Supply Plan and the water supply portion of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to make sure commitments the City has made have been met, that Well 10 is identified in the plans, and that the City’s current population reasonably matches projections. • Review the DNR’s Groundwater Technical Assessment prepared at the time the DNR reviewed the City’s most recent Water Supply Plan. • Review the most current Farmington Water System Comprehensive Plan Once we have reviewed this information, Barr will schedule a kickoff meeting with City staff to discuss project goals and desired outcomes. At the meeting, we will review the proposed scope of work, and make sure all parties are in agreement with projected project outcomes and deliverables. We will also prepare a client service plan at the meeting to define communication preferences and other project protocols intended to result in a favorable project outcome. Meetings: The following meetings are part of this phase of work: • Kickoff meeting (in person) Deliverables: The following deliverables are assumed for this task: • Data/information request • Invitation to and minutes from the kickoff meeting • Client service plan Assumptions: • City will provide requested data including, but not limited to, the most recent Comprehensive Plan, Appropriations Permit, and Water Supply Plan, as well as the DNR’s Groundwater Technical Assessment associated with the DNR’s review of the Water Supply Plan. • City will host the kickoff meeting Constraints and Criteria Objective: Define the well and well site to inform site selection phase Task Description: This task will include interaction with regulatory agencies to identify their concerns and requirements specific to this area as they pertain to high-capacity water supply wells. The first step in this task will be to identify the aquifer from which Well 10 will pump. The obvious, preferred choice is the Jordan aquifer. However, the DNR may challenge this aquifer selection if they believe Well 10 may negatively impact nearby surface water bodies or existing wells. To inform this task, Barr will conduct Page 73 of 503 John Powell, PE October 16, 2024 Page 3 G:\BKL\Minnesota Clients\Farmington\Well 10\Farmington Well 10 Siting Proposal letter FINAL to city.docx preliminary groundwater modeling to assess the potential of Well 10 to affect surface water features or interfere with existing wells. Following the groundwater modeling, Barr will schedule an aquifer selection meeting with DNR staff for a preliminary discussion of adding Well 10 to the City’s water supply system and the preferred aquifer for Well 10. The objective of the meeting will be to identify any major concerns the DNR may have regarding the aquifer to be targeted for Well 10. Please note that it is unlikely that the DNR would indicate final approval of the aquifer selection at this meeting. Following the aquifer selection meeting, Barr will prepare a brief Well 10 design basis memorandum to further inform well siting. The memorandum will document the City’s requirements (constraints) and preferences (criteria) that might impact site selection. For the purposes of this proposal, Barr has assumed that the City will prefer that Well 10 be constructed like other recently competed Farmington wells, excluding Well 9 which had a unique opportunity to exclude a wellhouse and chemical addition on site. We assume Well 10 will include the following items as either constraints or criteria related to the physical features of the well itself: • 18- or 20-inch diameter inner well casing with additional outer casings as required • The well will be drilled into the Jordan aquifer and completed with an open hole • Wellhouse at the surface • Line shaft vertical turbine pump with the motor at the surface and a downhole check valve • Chemical addition and electrical equipment located in the wellhouse • Pump to system pressure at a watermain adjacent to the site • Bituminous driveway and basic site landscaping to blend into the area • Connection to the City’s SCADA system The design basis memorandum will also include a list of additional constraints and criteria to be used in selecting a site for the well. Following is a partial, preliminary list of additional constraints and criteria: • Constraints (the well site must meet these items) o The site must meet MDH land ownership and well setback requirements o Well site must align with wellhead protection considerations o The well must not impact protected waters such as calcareous fens or trout streams o Others, as appropriate • Criteria (these will be used to compare sites that meet constraints to each other) o Well site should minimize potential for interference with existing wells o Well site should minimize potential for adverse impacts to surface waters o Proximity to previously installed raw water collection main, if relevant o Proximity to City distribution system o Proximity to power supply o Proximity to proposed future centralized water treatment facility o Constructability considerations (site grade, drill rig accessibility, staging area, etc.) Barr will then finalize a draft version of the design basis memorandum summarizing these items that will be used to inform well siting. Once the City approves the memorandum Barr will move to the well siting phase of the work. Meetings: The following meetings are part of this phase of work: Page 74 of 503 John Powell, PE October 16, 2024 Page 4 G:\BKL\Minnesota Clients\Farmington\Well 10\Farmington Well 10 Siting Proposal letter FINAL to city.docx • Aquifer selection meeting with DNR (virtual to accommodate DNR staff availability) • Constraints and criteria review meeting with City staff (virtual) Deliverables: The following deliverables are assumed for this task: • Groundwater modeling power point for the DNR meeting along with a brief memo • Design/Constraints/Criteria basis memorandum Assumptions: • City will provide electronic information for the location of existing relevant infrastructure including, but not limited to, any raw water collection mains, existing distribution system mains, City-owned land parcels that might be considered for a well site, information on buildings within the city limits NOT connected to city water, and other relevant data as requested. • City will provide input on constraints and criteria for Well 10 • The interactions with state agencies will be relatively straight forward and result in use of the Jordan aquifer. Any detailed modeling or report preparation to defend the use of any aquifer is not included in this proposal. Well Siting Objective: Identify a site for Well 10 acceptable to the City and likely permittable with the DNR and MDH. Task Description: Barr will proceed with siting the well following City acceptance of the design basis memorandum. Barr will review the previous well sites considered but not selected for Well 9 and up to two additional well sites preferred by the City. The sites will be compared based on the list of constraints and criteria documented in the design basis memorandum. The site selection process will include a meeting with City staff followed by visits to potential well sites. Barr will prepare a decision memorandum after the meeting and site visits. Once the well site is selected, Barr will prepare and submit a Well Construction Assessment form to the DNR. Following review of the form, the DNR will provide a Preliminary Well Construction Assessment (PWCA) that will present any potentially significant resource impacts they identify in the vicinity of the proposed well. Please note that in the PWCA, the DNR will not approve aquifer selection or guarantee that Well 10 can be permitted. Actual approval of the aquifer will not occur until after a test pump of the well itself (sometimes DNR approval is withheld until the well is connected to the water supply system). Barr will also prepare a preliminary wellhead protection area delineation for Well 10. This delineation will be submitted to the MDH along with the well design (once that it completed at a later date ) per MDH requirements. Meetings: The following meetings are part of this phase of work: • Well siting meeting and site visits (in person) • Presentation of final results Deliverables: The following deliverables are assumed for this task: • Brief well siting decision memorandum that documents aquifer and site selection • Preliminary wellhead protection area delineation • DNR Well Construction Assessment form Page 75 of 503 John Powell, PE October 16, 2024 Page 5 G:\BKL\Minnesota Clients\Farmington\Well 10\Farmington Well 10 Siting Proposal letter FINAL to city.docx Assumptions: • The City will provide Barr with up to two new preferred well sites for comparison to those not selected for Well 9. • The City will provide topography and property parcel boundaries for each site appropriate for use in determining setbacks. We have assumed that this information will be provided in electronic format such as GIS shapefiles or CADD drawing files. • The City will provide any wetland or flood level information relevant to the parcels under consideration that is not readily available through existing data bases like the National Wetland Inventory or FEMA flood maps. Project Team The following key staff will help with this project: • Partner in Charge: Brian LeMon, PE • Project Manager: Dan Nessler, PE • Well Siting: John Greer, PG and Sorel Nelson Project Schedule This proposal covers work that will run through December 31, 2025, unless terminated by the City or Barr. A more detailed schedule can be provided upon request. Cost The total cost of the services provided under the General Services Work Order is estimated at $43,000. Should tasks be requested that will cause the total billed under this Work Order to exceed $43,000 Barr will notify the City and request a modification to the total cost allowed. The work performed under this Work Order will be governed by the terms of the current Professional Consulting Services Agreement in place between Barr and the City. If the terms of this proposal are acceptable to the City, please date and sign in the space provided below and return a signed PDF copy to Barr. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at 612-669-6797. Sincerely yours, BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY By Brian K. LeMon Its Vice President Accepted this day of , 2024 CITY OF FARMINGTON By Its Page 76 of 503 224345v1 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT AND FEE SCHEDULE Page 77 of 503 Name (Last, First) LeMon, Brian Greer, John Nesler, Dan Nelson, Sorel Conway, Ryan Anderson, Eddie Huffman, Yvonne Initials JCG DAN SLN RJC3 EMA YMH Billing Rate 230.00$ 225.00$ 210.00$ 115.00$ 145.00$ 120.00$ 105.00$ Project Role Vice President Senior Hydrogeologist Senior Civil Engineer Environmental Engineer Hydrogeologist GIS Specialist Senior Administrative Assistant Job 1 4% Review existing information 2.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 30.0 5,120.00$ -$ 204.80$ 5,324.80$ Prep for and attending kickoff meeting 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 1,750.00$ -$ 70.00$ 1,820.00$ Subtotal 4.0 6.0 12.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 38.0 6,870.00$ -$ 274.80$ 7,144.80$ 17%0 Job 2 4% Aquifer selection GW modeling 2.0 4.0 40.0 46.0 7,090.00$ -$ 283.60$ 7,373.60$ Aquifer selection meeting 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 1,330.00$ -$ 53.20$ 1,383.20$ Design/constraints/criteria memo 4.0 4.0 16.0 24.0 8.0 4.0 60.0 9,320.00$ -$ 372.80$ 9,692.80$ Design/constraints/criteria meeting 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 1,750.00$ -$ 70.00$ 1,820.00$ Subtotal 8.0 10.0 26.0 24.0 40.0 8.0 4.0 120.0 19,490.00$ -$ 779.60$ 20,269.60$ 47%0 Job 3 4% Well siting meeting and site vists 3.0 3.0 6.0 12.0 2,010.00$ 200.00$ 88.40$ 2,298.40$ Well siting set back mapping 24.0 6.0 30.0 3,480.00$ -$ 139.20$ 3,619.20$ Well siting memo 2.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 36.0 5,610.00$ -$ 224.40$ 5,834.40$ Preliminary WHP area delineation 4.0 2.0 4.0 10.0 1,900.00$ -$ 76.00$ 1,976.00$ DNR Well Constructoin Assesment form 2.0 3.0 6.0 11.0 1,770.00$ -$ 70.80$ 1,840.80$ Subtotal 5.0 10.0 16.0 48.0 6.0 10.0 4.0 99.0 14,770.00$ 200.00$ 598.80$ 15,568.80$ 36%0 Project Total 17.0 26.0 54.0 80.0 54.0 18.0 8.0 257.0 41,130.00$ 200.00$ 42,983.20$ 0 Assumptions: Stated in letter proposal. # of Deliverables Contingency %Project Total % of Total Labor Hours Labor Costs Expenses Project Name:Well 10 Siting Study Client Name: City of Farmington Date: 10/1/24 Approved by: Brian LeMon Pa g e 7 8 o f 5 0 3 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Deanna Kuennen, Community & Economic Development Director Department: Community Development Subject: Resolution 2024-97 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: Minnesota Rules 4410 authorize the Responsible Unit of Government (RGU) to use the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process to review the potential environmental impacts associated with and process The areas. defined in projects development anticipated geographically requirements for the AUAR are specifically identified, including timelines associated with the various steps. The Farmington Technology Park area encompasses 343 acres on three parcels located along the north and south side of 255th Street West. In June, an AUAR Scoping Document was published in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor for this site/project and on August 5, 2024, the City Council passed Resolution 2025-71 Adopting a Final Order and Record of Decision for an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park - determining that the AUAR is the appropriate environmental review document and ordering that an AUAR be prepared. The AUAR has been prepared, distributed, and the City Council is asked to adopt the AUAR dated October 2024. DISCUSSION: An AUAR is a planning tool to understand how different development scenarios will affect the environment before the development occurs. Minnesota Rule 4410 specifically identifies when a review is required, who manages the process, what topics are covered in the review, and what happens following adoption of an AUAR. An AUAR was developed for an area encompassing approximately 343 acres, including three (3) parcels, located along the north and south side of 255th Street West in Farmington. The area was studied to understand the potential impacts associated with developing the existing farmland and golf course into a technology park or a combination of residential and commercial uses, to identify mitigation measures to compensate for those impacts. Page 79 of 503 AUAR Study Area An AUAR Scoping Document was prepared for this site for the two development scenarios, was reviewed and distributed to required state and federal agencies, and a notice of availability of the AUAR Scoping Document was published in the EQB Monitor for the required 30-day comment period which ended on July 11, 2024. The City Council adopted Resolution 2024-71 on August 5, 2204 - determining that the AUAR was appropriate and ordering that the AUAR be prepared. The draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan was prepared and distributed for a required 30-day public and agency review. Comments received on the AUAR have generated information adequate to determine mitigation measures associated with potential development in this area. The Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan was then distributed to the required agencies and Met-Council for a final 10-day review/objection period. Final comments were provided, but no objections were received. No changes to the AUAR were made based on the additional comments received, however the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Updates Memorandum is attached. If adopted, future development in the Project Study Area is expected to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the Farmington Technology Park AUAR. The AUAR is valid for 5 years and requires updating every 5 years until development build-out is complete. ACTION REQUESTED: As the RGU, the City Council is asked to consider Resolution 2024-97 Adopting the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park. ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION 2024-97 - Adopt Final AUAR for Farmington Technology Park Farmington Tech Park_ Final AUAR_Updates Memo_20241030 Page 80 of 503 Farmington Tech Park_Final AUAR_October 2024 Page 81 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-97 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) FOR THE FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK WHEREAS, in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota, namely Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subpart 1, a local unit of government may use the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (“AUAR”) instead of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) or Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) to review anticipated residential, commercial, warehousing, and light industrial development and associated infrastructure in a particular geographic area within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Farmington Technology Park (“Project”) property is located on approximately 343 acres on three parcels located along the north and south side of 255th Street W in Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the AUAR was completed pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.3610 which identifies and assesses the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project Study Area; and WHEREAS, the AUAR was distributed for the required 30-day comment period, revised based on received comments, and redistributed for the required 10-day objection period; and WHEREAS, comments received on the AUAR have generated information adequate to determine mitigation measures associated with the potential development in this areas; and WHEREAS, no objections were received; and WHEREAS, development of the Project Study Area is expected to comply with all Farmington and review agency standards as well as the specific mitigation measures outlined in the AUAR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota, that the City of Farmington adopts the Farmington Technology Park AUAR Dated October 2024. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 4th day of November 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 82 of 503 Farmington Technology Park - Final AUAR Updates October 2024 Farmington Technology Park Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review Updates Memorandum October 2024 Prepared for: Prepared by: Page 83 of 503 Farmington Technology Park - Final AUAR Updates October 2024 Project Description The AUAR study area encompasses an area totaling approximately 343 acres on three parcels in the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota. Tract Management Company, LP is proposing to redevelop the study area from existing agriculture and golf course use to data center uses. Development Scenarios Two development scenarios were studied in the AUAR. The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst- case potential impacts and identify mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts. Development of the study area would include new infrastructure, including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities. All new services would be extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrades to existing systems to support the new development. • Scenario 1 represents proposed technology park development. Construction is anticipated to start in 2025. • Scenario 2 represents proposed residential and commercial development. Construction is anticipated to take place over multiple phases from 2024 to 2040. Updates to the AUAR Since the Final AUAR was Published The AUAR objection period on the Final AUAR began October 8, 2024, and ended October 22, 2024. No objections were received, but further comments were received from two governmental agencies and one regional agency. No changes have been made to the AUAR. Responses to Comments received on the Final AUAR: The following responses have been provided on the comments received on the Final AUAR during the objection period. Table 1. Comments and Responses Comment Response Metropolitan Council Item 10 Land Use (Todd Graham 651-602-1313) The Council’s Transportation Analysis Zones database lists Zone #711 adding no households, no population, and +123 jobs during 2020-2040. Should either of the two scenarios be pursued, the TAZ allocation for employment will need to be revised higher. Comment noted. The city will coordinate with Metropolitan Council on a revised TAZ allocation as needed. Item 12 Water Resources – Sanitary Sewers (John Chlebeck, 651-602-4527) As stated in the AUAR, the southern portion of the study area is outside of the current MUSA, so sewered development phasing will be updated through a comprehensive plan amendment. Scenario 1 includes the development of data centers in the geographic area of interest of the AUAR. The forecasted peak wastewater flow from the future development is expected to be in a range of 0.9 – 2.35 Comment noted. It is noted that a comprehensive plan update is needed to include the AUAR Study Area within the MUSA. The City will coordinate with Metropolitan Council to understand current capacity in the regional system and potential changes that may be necessary to provide adequate capacity for the anticipated flows. The city has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated Page 84 of 503 Farmington Technology Park - Final AUAR Updates October 2024 MGD. The AUAR does not identify a specific connection point to the Metropolitan Council’s regional wastewater system. Portions of Interceptor 7103-1, which is the nearest regional sewer to the study area, may be limited in capacity to serve the full development peak wastewater generation rate. It may be necessary to serve the area through the planned interceptor along Biscayne Ave. The City should reach out to the Wastewater Planning and Community Programs dept. to plan for sewer service to the study area. Contact John Chlebeck at john.chlebeck@metc.state.mn.us, 651-602-4527, for additional information. Proposed data center developers under Scenario 1 will be required to obtain an Industrial Discharge Permit, at which time specific wastewater quality and quantity will need to be evaluated for impacts to system capacity, wastewater treatment processes, and wastewater effluent permitting. Depending on actual peak flows and wastewater constituents, additional mitigation may be required, such as pre-treatment, attenuation through wastewater storage, or an alternative surface water or ground infiltration discharge. Additionally, the Council’s Waste Discharge Rules prohibit non-contact cooling water from being discharged to the sanitary sewer system, unless it is demonstrated that there is no effective and practical alternative. Developers are encouraged to contact Met Council’s Industrial Waste and Pollution Prevention group to request a review of proposed cooling water discharges to better understand requirements of a specific project. Please contact Tina Nelson, PE at martina.nelson@metc.state.mn.us, 651-602-4728, for additional information. comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report reviews the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway, the report has been provided to the Metropolitan Council for review and commen t The city will continue to pursue water conservation, re-use, and water efficiency options with the project proposer. The city will continue to work with the project proposer and the Metropolitan Council to review additional mitigation measures that may be needed such as pre -treatment, attenuation through wastewater storage, or an alternative surface water or ground infiltration discharge. The project proposer and or developer will coordinate with Metropolitan Council’s Industrial Waste and Pollution Prevention group to request a review of proposed cooling water discharges to better understand requirements of a specific project. Item 12 Water Resources – Water Supply (Lanya Ross, 651-602-1803) The AUAR acknowledges that the City of Farmington, who is completing a water study to understand potential demand and impacts, may need additional storage and a water appropriation permit from the DNR. Water supply staff offer the following comments: • Be aware that any changes to the local water supply plan because of this work will require DNR approval. Altered plans should be Comment noted. The city received an amended appropriation permit in 2021 with the permit for Well 9. It was anticipated during the issuance of the permit for Well 9 that future wells would be needed to accommodate growth in City. The city has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report reviews the need for additional water and Page 85 of 503 Farmington Technology Park - Final AUAR Updates October 2024 submitted to the Metropolitan Council as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. • The project proposer should continue to work closely with the City and the DNR to understand any potential impact from increased groundwater pumping. The AUAR continues to refer to groundwater levels from a geologic atlas published in 1990. A new Dakota County geologic atlas is available, with useful information about the potential for groundwater contamination (https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/5d8d0fa7-2cc7- 4db5-ba02-e33702bf3573). Additionally, current information about groundwater conditions in observation wells in and around the City of Farmington is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/cgm/index.html). sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. Aside from this project, and anticipating future system-wide needs, the City of Farmington has initiated well siting study and analysis. A Preliminary Well Construction Assessment will be developed and submitted to the DNR for review. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The DNR still has significant concerns and questions regarding the lack of detail included in the water appropriation section of the AUAR. This section does not include enough information to evaluate the future sustainability of the City of Farmington’s municipal water supply through our permitting process. It is difficult to see how the proposed development could proceed without one or more additional wells unless they implement extensive water reuse measures along with other alternative water conservation practices. The AUAR references the City of Farmington’s 2020 water demand of 2.14 MGD, and a Scenario 1 additional water demand of 2.35 MGD. Scenario 1 use would more than double the volume the city currently uses (before considering the additional potential demand from other proposed data centers). If the City of Farmington would pump groundwater to meet any additional volume needed, they would likely need additional water supply wells, and at a minimum a large increase in total pumping volume compared to what is currently permitted (2.74 MGD). This project will likely need a DNR Water Appropriation Permit or permit amendment, but the proposers have not evaluated the potential impacts to the Vermillion River or the long- term sustainability of the aquifer(s) during this environmental review process. As noted in the Final AUAR, the city received an amended appropriation permit in 2021 with the permit for Well 9. It was anticipated during the issuance of the permit for Well 9 that future wells would be needed to accommodate growth in City. The city has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report reviews the need for additional water infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. The city will continue to pursue water conservation, re-use, and water efficiency options with the project proposer. Wastewater reuse has been evaluated by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for this region of Dakota County and water reuse may be evaluated during the site plan review process. Aside from this project, and anticipating future system-wide needs, the City of Farmington Page 86 of 503 Farmington Technology Park - Final AUAR Updates October 2024 has initiated a well siting study and analysis. A Preliminary Well Construction Assessment will be developed and submitted to the DNR for review. The AUAR Guidance in the instructions (page 43 of the Revised AUAR) states, “If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.” The AUAR does not supply specific information on impacts to groundwater levels and resultant impacts on other resources, including the Vermillion River (both the potential for stream depletion to occur from high- capacity pumping of the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer and its protected status as a trout stream), and interconnections among the Prairie du Chien/Jordan, Jordan, and quaternary aquifers. The siting of new well(s) is critical to evaluating these impacts and cannot be done after the environmental review is complete. As noted in the response above, the city has completed serviceability studies to understand the potential need for additional water infrastructure for the land uses identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. The City plans to complete a well siting study and analysis for a new well. Evaluation of an amendment to DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1959-0725 must include consideration of the sustainability standard (MN Statute 103G.287 Subd.5). To evaluate the sustainability of additional groundwater withdrawal in this area, the AUAR must also include the following information as detailed in the AUAR instructions (page 43): a. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. b. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. c. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency connections. Comment noted on the process for a water appropriations permit. Page 87 of 503 Farmington Technology Park - Final AUAR Updates October 2024 We appreciate that the proposer is considering water conservation measures, such as reusing effluent water from the Metropolitan Council’s Empire treatment facility for non-contact cooling. It is unclear if the Empire WWTF has the capacity to support this method for the multiple proposed data centers in the area. It is also not known how much the development of two or more data centers in the area will increase water demand for the municipal water supplier. The cumulative impacts from multiple data centers in the same general area and the subsequent increase in water use is an important part of evaluating the environmental impacts of this development and the sustainability of water use within the existing aquifer. The AUAR guidance (page 30) also notes that, “Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan.” Comment noted. As noted above, the City anticipates the need for additional water infrastructure for the land uses identified in the comprehensive plan update and will coordinate with the regulatory agencies as needed. A project proposer must submit a Preliminary Well Construction Assessment (PWCA) application to the DNR before constructing the well. After the well is constructed but before the water is appropriated, the project proposer must apply for and receive a DNR Water Appropriations Permit. Since the AUAR fails to provide information on the sustainability of the proposed water appropriation, the DNR will require some or all this information when we receive a PWCA application or alternatively when we receive a Water Appropriations Permit application. We will consider the permit application incomplete until the information is provided. Comment noted. A Preliminary Well Construction Assessment (PWCA) application to the DNR will be submitted and a Water Appropriations Permit will be obtained. As part of the permit application review process, the DNR will analyze the sustainability of this proposal with regards to: • Water levels, • The potential for well interferences and the • The potential to reduce discharge to surface water resources, such as the Vermillion River. For a high-volume water appropriation request with one or more new wells, it is likely that the DNR will require an aquifer pumping test as part of the permit application review process. The test must be done according to the DNR’s site-specific specifications and Comment noted on the process for permit application review. Page 88 of 503 Farmington Technology Park - Final AUAR Updates October 2024 under DNR direction. Based on the sustainability analysis, the DNR may: • Issue the permit, • Issue the permit with conditions, or • Deny the permit Vermillion River Watershed Joint Power Organization Page 30, Section 12 reads, “Kimley-Horn completed a wetland delineation on May 30 and June 13, 2024, and identified ten wetlands within the study area, described in Table 10. A formal wetland approval process will be initiated with Dakota County to review the delineated boundaries and types; a NOD has not yet been issued.” VRWJPO staff spoke with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Local Government Unit (LGU) and found that the wetland approval process was not initiated. A wetland delineation report approved by the acting WCA LGU should be incorporated into project design to ensure protection of wetlands adjacent the South Branch Vermillion River and compliance with MN Rule 8420.0105. All narrative, maps and tables relating to wetlands should reflect the approved wetland delineation. Comment noted. The wetland delineation report will be submitted to the WCA LGU for wetland boundary and type approval. Page 89 of 503 Farmington Technology Park - Final AUAR Updates October 2024 Agency Letters Page 90 of 503 Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services) 390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904 metrocouncil.org An Equal Opportunity Employer October 18, 2024 Tony Wippler, Planning Manager City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: City of Farmington – Revised Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) – Farmington Technology Park Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22985-3 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Dear Tony Wippler: Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the Farmington Technology Park Revised Final AUAR to determine its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Council staff commented on the draft AUAR in its September 26, 2024 letter. The staff review has concluded that the FAUAR addresses previous comments and is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. The Council does not object to the FAUAR. Item 10 Land Use (Todd Graham 651-602-1313) The Council’s Transportation Analysis Zones database lists Zone #711 adding no households, no population, and +123 jobs during 2020-2040. Should either of the two scenarios be pursued, the TAZ allocation for employment will need to be revised higher. Item 12 Water Resources – Sanitary Sewers (John Chlebeck, 651-602-4527) As stated in the AUAR, the southern portion of the study area is outside of the current MUSA, so sewered development phasing will be updated through a comprehensive plan amendment. Scenario 1 includes the development of data centers in the geographic area of interest of the AUAR. The forecasted peak wastewater flow from the future development is expected to be in a range of 0.9 – 2.35 MGD. The AUAR does not identify a specific connection point to the Metropolitan Council’s regional wastewater system. Portions of Interceptor 7103-1, which is the nearest regional sewer to the study area, may be limited in capacity to serve the full development peak wastewater generation rate. It may be necessary to serve the area through the planned interceptor along Biscayne Ave. The City should reach out to the Wastewater Planning and Community Programs dept. to plan for sewer service to the study area. Contact John Chlebeck at john.chlebeck@metc.state.mn.us, 651-602-4527, for additional information. Proposed data center developers under Scenario 1 will be required to obtain an Industrial Discharge Permit, at which time specific wastewater quality and quantity will need to be evaluated for impacts to system capacity, wastewater treatment processes, and wastewater effluent permitting. Depending on actual peak flows and wastewater constituents, additional mitigation may Page 91 of 503 Page - 2 | October 18, 2024 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL be required, such as pre-treatment, attenuation through wastewater storage, or an alternative surface water or ground infiltration discharge. Additionally, the Council’s Waste Discharge Rules prohibit non-contact cooling water from being discharged to the sanitary sewer system, unless it is demonstrated that there is no effective and practical alternative. Developers are encouraged to contact Met Council’s Industrial Waste and Pollution Prevention group to request a review of proposed cooling water discharges to better understand requirements of a specific project. Please contact Tina Nelson, PE at martina.nelson@metc.state.mn.us, 651-602-4728, for additional information. Item 12 Water Resources – Water Supply (Lanya Ross, 651-602-1803) The AUAR acknowledges that the City of Farmington, who is completing a water study to understand potential demand and impacts, may need additional storage and a water appropriation permit from the DNR. Water supply staff offer the following comments: o Be aware that any changes to the local water supply plan because of this work will require DNR approval. Altered plans should be submitted to the Metropolitan Council as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. o The project proposer should continue to work closely with the City and the DNR to understand any potential impact from increased groundwater pumping. The AUAR continues to refer to groundwater levels from a geologic atlas published in 1990. A new Dakota County geologic atlas is available, with useful information about the potential for groundwater contamination (https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/5d8d0fa7-2cc7-4db5-ba02- e33702bf3573). Additionally, current information about groundwater conditions in observation wells in and around the City of Farmington is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/cgm/index.html). This will conclude the Council’s review of the FAUAR. The Council will take no formal action on the FAUAR. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Patrick Boylan, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1438 or via email at Patrick.Boylan@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Wendy Wulff, Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Judy Sventek, Water Resources Manager Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative/ Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Farmington\Letters\Farmington 2024 Farmington Technology Park Revised AUAR 22985-3.docx Page 92 of 503 1 Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email Region 3 Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 October 22, 2024 Tony Wippler Planning Manager City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Tony Wippler, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Farmington Technology Park Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the project area located in Dakota County. The DNR has reviewed the response to our previous comments and appreciates the changes made to the Final AUAR document. The DNR still has significant concerns and questions regarding the lack of detail included in the water appropriation section of the AUAR. This section does not include enough information to evaluate the future sustainability of the City of Farmington’s municipal water supply through our permitting process. It is difficult to see how the proposed development could proceed without one or more additional wells unless they implement extensive water reuse measures along with other alternative water conservation practices. The AUAR references the City of Farmington’s 2020 water demand of 2.14 MGD, and a Scenario 1 additional water demand of 2.35 MGD. Scenario 1 use would more than double the volume the city currently uses (before considering the additional potential demand from other proposed data centers). If the City of Farmington would pump groundwater to meet any additional volume needed, they would likely need additional water supply wells, and at a minimum a large increase in total pumping volume compared to what is currently permitted (2.74 MGD). This project will likely need a DNR Water Appropriation Permit or permit amendment, but the proposers have not evaluated the potential impacts to the Vermillion River or the long-term sustainability of the aquifer(s) during this environmental review process. The AUAR Guidance in the instructions (page 43 of the Revised AUAR) states, “If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.” The AUAR does not supply specific information on impacts to groundwater levels and resultant impacts on other resources, including the Vermillion River (both the potential for stream depletion to occur Page 93 of 503 2 from high-capacity pumping of the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer and its protected status as a trout stream), and interconnections among the Prairie du Chien/Jordan, Jordan, and quaternary aquifers. The siting of new well(s) is critical to evaluating these impacts and cannot be done after the environmental review is complete. Evaluation of an amendment to DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1959-0725 must include consideration of the sustainability standard (MN Statute 103G.287 Subd.5). To evaluate the sustainability of additional groundwater withdrawal in this area, the AUAR must also include the following information as detailed in the AUAR instructions (page 43): a. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. b. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. c. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency connections. We appreciate that the proposer is considering water conservation measures, such as reusing effluent water from the Metropolitan Council’s Empire treatment facility for non-contact cooling. It is unclear if the Empire WWTF has the capacity to support this method for the multiple proposed data centers in the area. It is also not known how much the development of two or more data centers in the area will increase water demand for the municipal water supplier. The cumulative impacts from multiple data centers in the same general area and the subsequent increase in water use is an important part of evaluating the environmental impacts of this development and the sustainability of water use within the existing aquifer. The AUAR guidance (page 30) also notes that, “Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan.” A project proposer must submit a Preliminary Well Construction Assessment (PWCA) application to the DNR before constructing the well. After the well is constructed but before the water is appropriated, the project proposer must apply for and receive a DNR Water Appropriations Permit. Since the AUAR fails to provide information on the sustainability of the proposed water appropriation, the DNR will require some or all this information when we receive a PWCA application or alternatively when we receive a Water Appropriations Permit application. We will consider the permit application incomplete until the information is provided. As part of the permit application review process, the DNR will analyze the sustainability of this proposal with regards to: • Water levels, • The potential for well interferences and the • The potential to reduce discharge to surface water resources, such as the Vermillion River. Page 94 of 503 3 For a high-volume water appropriation request with one or more new wells, it is likely that the DNR will require an aquifer pumping test as part of the permit application review process. The test must be done according to the DNR’s site-specific specifications and under DNR direction. Based on the sustainability analysis, the DNR may: • Issue the permit, • Issue the permit with conditions, or • Deny the permit. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. We look forward to further coordination as the development moves forward. We request that this letter be included in the official record. Sincerely, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us CC: Kristin Dean, Tract Management Company, LP Equal Opportunity Employer Page 95 of 503 Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 4100 220th Street West, Suite 103, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 | 952.891.7000 | Fax 952.891.7588 10/17/2024 Mr. Tony Wippler Planning Manager, City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Farmington Technology Park Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated October 2024 The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Farmington Technology Park Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review October 2024 (AUAR) by Kimley-Horn. Staff has reviewed this document and have the following comments: 1) Page 30, Section 12 reads, “Kimley-Horn completed a wetland delineation on May 30 and June 13, 2024, and identified ten wetlands within the study area, described in Table 10. A formal wetland approval process will be initiated with Dakota County to review the delineated boundaries and types; a NOD has not yet been issued.” VRWJPO staff spoke with the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Local Government Unit (LGU) and found that the wetland approval process was not initiated. A wetland delineation report approved by the acting WCA LGU should be incorporated into project design to ensure protection of wetlands adjacent the South Branch Vermillion River and compliance with MN Rule 8420.0105. All narrative, maps and tables relating to wetlands should reflect the approved wetland delineation. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Farmington Technology Park Final AUAR. Please feel free to contact Jeff Dunn at jeff.dunn@co.dakota.mn.us or 952.891.7140 if you have any questions or comments. Jeff Dunn Travis Thiel VRWJPO Water Resources Engineer VRWJPO Administrator Kelly Perrine VRWJPO Senior Watershed Specialist Page 96 of 503 OCTOBER 2024 Farmington Technology Park FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Page 97 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 ii Table of Contents 1. Project Title ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Proposer .......................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RGU ................................................................................................................................................. 1 4. Reason for Preparation .................................................................................................................... 2 5. Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 2 6. Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 4 7. Climate Adaptation and Resilience ................................................................................................... 7 8. Cover Types ................................................................................................................................... 13 9. Permits and Approvals Required .................................................................................................... 14 10. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 16 11. Geology, Soils, and Topography/LANDFORMS ................................................................................ 25 12. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 30 13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................ 47 14. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ................... 49 15. Historic Properties ......................................................................................................................... 55 16. Visual ............................................................................................................................................. 55 17. Air ................................................................................................................................................. 56 18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint ...................................................................... 57 19. Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 61 20. Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 62 21. Cumulative Potential Effects .......................................................................................................... 66 22. Other Potential Environmental Effects ........................................................................................... 67 Final Mitigation Plan .............................................................................................................................. 67 List of Tables Table 1: Development Scenarios .............................................................................................................. 5 Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptations .................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Existing Cover Types ................................................................................................................. 13 Table 4: Green Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 14 Table 5: Anticipated Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................... 15 Table 6: Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan designations within the AUAR Study Area .................... 17 Table 7: Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks .......................................................................................... 20 Table 8: Soil Types ................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 9: Impaired Waters Within One Mile of the AUAR Study Area ...................................................... 32 Table 10: Delineation Summary ............................................................................................................. 34 Table 11: Wells within the AUAR Study Area .......................................................................................... 36 Table 12: Wastewater Discharges .......................................................................................................... 39 Table 13: Water Demand ....................................................................................................................... 44 Page 98 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 iii Table 14: City Production Wells Pumping Capacity ................................................................................ 45 Table 15: City of Farmington Water Use ................................................................................................ 45 Table 16: Phase I ESA: Identified Sites .................................................................................................... 47 Table 17: Estimated Solid Waste Generation ......................................................................................... 48 Table 18: Construction Emissions .......................................................................................................... 59 Table 19: Annual Operational Emissions ................................................................................................ 59 Table 20: Trip Generation Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 63 Table 21: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS .................................................................................. 64 Table 22: Final Mitigation Plan ............................................................................................................... 68 List of Figures Figure 1: USGS Map ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2: AUAR Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Development Scenario 1 ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Development Scenario 2 ........................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Flood Impact Zones ................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Cover Types ............................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 7: Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 8: Future Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 9: Existing Zoning Map ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 10: Soil Types .............................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 11: Surface Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 31 Figure 12: Wetland Delineation Summary.............................................................................................. 33 Figure 13: Groundwater Resources ........................................................................................................ 37 List of Appendices Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Report Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix C: Greenhouse Gas Quantification Appendix D: Additional Species Information Appendix E: Comment Responses Appendix F: Comment Letters Received Page 99 of 503 1 Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) follows the format of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) (December 2022 version). Where the AUAR guidance provided by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) indicates that an AUAR response should differ notably from what is required for an EAW, the guidance is noted in italics. 1. PROJECT TITLE Farmington Technology Park 2. PROPOSER Proposer: Tract Management Company, LP Contact Person: Kristin Dean Address: 3300 E. 1st Ave, Suite 600 City, State, ZIP: Denver, CO 80206 Email: kristin.dean@tract.com 3. RGU RGU: City of Farmington Contact Person: Tony Wippler Title: Planning Manager Address: 430 Third St City, State, ZIP: Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: 651-280-6800 Email: twippler@farmingtonmn.gov Page 100 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 2 4. REASON FOR PREPARATION AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to an AUAR. 5. PROJECT LOCATION County: Dakota City/Township: Farmington PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Section 5, Township 113N, Range 19W Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River & Lake Pepin Tax Parcel Numbers: 140050001012, 070050076011, 070050076012 At a minimum, attach each of the following to the AUAR: ● US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see Figure 1) ● Map depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis (see Figure 2 through Figure 4) ● List of data sources, models, and other resources (from the Item-by-Item Guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience or other) used for information about current Minnesota climate trends and how climate change is anticipated to affect the general location of the project during the life of the project (as detailed below in Item 7) ● Cover type map as required for Item 8 (see Figure 6) ● Land use and planning and zoning maps as required in conjunction with Item 10 (see Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9) Page 101 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 3 Figure 1: USGS Map Page 102 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 4 Figure 2: AUAR Study Area 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the EAW form, the description section of an AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included: ● Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial development throughout the AUAR area. ● Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary. ● Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule. Page 103 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 5 The AUAR study area encompasses an area totaling approximately 343 acres on three parcels in the City of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota (shown on Figure 2). Tract Management Company, LP is proposing to redevelop the study area from existing agriculture and golf course use to data center uses. Development Scenarios The development scenarios, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, are outlined in Table 1. Scenario 1 includes multiple buildings for a total of 2.53 million square feet of proposed light industrial development (see Figure 3). Scenario 2 consists of up to 675 residential units, 100,000 square feet of commercial space, and agricultural land (see Figure 4). The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and identify mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts. Development of the study area would include new infrastructure, including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities. All new services would be extensions to existing infrastructure or upgrades to existing systems to support the new development. Scenario 1 Scenario 1 represents proposed technology park development. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2025 (see Figure 3). Scenario 2 Scenario 2 represents proposed residential and commercial development. Construction is anticipated to take place over multiple phases from 2024 to 2040 (see Figure 4). Table 1: Development Scenarios Component Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Industrial 2.53 million sq ft - Residential - 675 units Commercial - 100,000 sq ft Park/Open Space 1 - 17.0 acres 1 Land Dedication Required For Parks, Trails And Open Space: Minnesota Statutes Annotated section 462.358, subdivision 2b provides that municipal subdivision regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space, and that the municipality may alternatively accept an equivalent amount in cash. Page 104 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 6 Figure 3: Development Scenario 1 Page 105 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 7 Figure 4: Development Scenario 2 7. CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCE a. Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location during the life of the project. Trends in temperature, precipitation, flood risk, and cooling degree days are described below for the general project location. Some of the climate projections summarized below use shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) or representative concentration pathways (RCP) which are greenhouse gas concentration scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. SSP 245 and RCP 4.5 are intermediate scenarios in which emissions decline after peaking around 2040, and SSP 370 and RCP 8.5 are high-emissions scenarios in which emissions continue to rise through the 21st century. Page 106 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 8 Temperature According to the Minnesota Climate Mapping and Analysis Tool (CliMAT), the annual daily average temperature in the study area from 1995 to 2014 was 45.4°F 2. The annual daily average temperature in the study area is projected to increase to 49.2°F from 2040 to 2059 under an intermediate emissions pathway (SSP 245). In 2080-2099, annual daily average temperature is projected to further increase to 52.2°F and 54.5°F under an intermediate (SSP 245) and high emissions pathway (SSP 370), respectively. Urban Heat Island Surfaces and structures such as roads, parking lots, and buildings absorb and re-emit more heat from the sun than natural landscapes. This can significantly raise air temperature and overall extreme heat vulnerability in urban areas where there are dense concentrations of these surfaces. This is referred to as urban heat island effect. According to the Metropolitan Council’s Extreme Heat Map Tool, the AUAR study area is located in an area of low to medium heat vulnerability.3 Precipitation According to the Minnesota CliMAT, historic average precipitation in the study area between 1995 and 2014 was approximately 34.2 inches. Average annual precipitation in the study area from 2040-2059 is projected to be 34.8 inches under SSP 245. From 2080-2099, average annual precipitation is projected to be 33.3 inches under SSP 245 and 33.5 inches under SSP 370. According to the EPA Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT) Climate Change Scenarios Projection Map, there is a projected 2.9% to 13.7% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a projected 5.6% to 26.6% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2060 4. Flood Risk In many places, climate change is exacerbating the frequency and intensity of the extreme rainfall events and associated flooding. According to the Metropolitan Council Localized Flood Map Screening Tool, a tool that identifies potential surface flooding locations, the study area is located within Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Shallow Flood Impact Zones (FIZ) as shown in Figure 5.5 Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary FIZ describe the first areas to fill with water during a flood event, with Primary filling first, followed by Secondary and Tertiary. Shallow FIZ are separate low areas generally considered low risk, but this depth may still be a concern for certain types of infrastructure. 2 Minnesota CliMAT. University of Minnesota. Available at https://app.climate.umn.edu/?output_type=modelVal&scenario=ssp370_2080-2099&model=ensemble&variable=tmax- degF&time_frame=yearly&aoi=none#intro_pane 3 Extreme Heat Map Tool, Metropolitan Council. Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning- Assistance/CVA/Extreme-Heat.aspx 4 CREAT Climate Change Scenarios Projection Map. US EPA. Available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3805293158d54846a29f750d63c6890e 5 Localized Flood Map Screening Tool. Metropolitan Council. Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/CVA/Tools-Resources.aspx Page 107 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 9 Cooling Degree Days As defined by the National Weather Service, degree days are based on the assumption that when the outside temperature is 65°F, heating or cooling is not needed to be comfortable. Degree days are the difference between the daily temperature mean and 65°F. If the temperature mean is above 65°F, 65 is subtracted from the mean and the result is the cooling degree days. For example, if the mean temperature over a 24-hour period is 70°F, then there have been 5 cooling degree days.6 Cooling degree days are used as a proxy to estimate cooling needs for buildings. According to Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota, the number of cooling degree days in 2019 for Dakota County was 424. The number of cooling days in 2050 for Dakota County is projected to be 505 and 652 for RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively.7 b. For each resource category in the table below, describe the project’s proposed activities and how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed adaptations to address the project effects identified. Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptations Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptations (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2) Project Design Aspects of building architecture/materials choices and site design may impact urban heat island conditions in the surrounding area, including changing climate zones, temperature trends, and potential for extended heat waves. In the coming decades, the location of the study area is anticipated to experience: ● Increased annual temperatures ● Increased annual precipitation and more frequent heavy rainfall events ● Increased freeze thaw cycles ● Medium urban heat island effect ● Energy end-use efficient appliances and equipment and energy efficient lighting will be incorporated into building design ● Building shells will be energy efficient ● Proposed native trees and landscaping will reduce runoff and mitigate heat island effect ● Parking areas will be evaluated to potentially reduce impervious areas within the AUAR Study Area. ● Water efficient design will be incorporated in landscaping 6 “What Are Heating and Cooling Degree Days,” National Weather Service. Available at https://www.weather.gov/key/climate_heat_cool. 7 Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Health and the University of Minnesota. Available at https://maps.umn.edu/climatehealthtool/heat_app/. Page 108 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 10 Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptations (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2) Land Use No critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those with housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) are proposed. Portions of the study area are within FEMA 100-Year floodplains. Portions of the proposed development may experience flooding during extreme rain events. Design of the site and stormwater management facilities will be completed to reduce the risk of flooding in the AUAR study area. Infiltration areas will be used to improve water quality and stormwater runoff in the project vicinity. Water Resources Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence water resources. Water resources in the general project area may become warmer, more polluted, and change in volume due to increased temperatures and runoff. There may be more evaporation and water available when it rains leading to an increase in the flood potential. It is projected that there will be more severe storm events with high, intense rain amounts which will require drainage systems to be adequately maintained to accommodate for the increase in water volume. ● Developer will consider using native plants and perennials for landscaping and stormwater features will absorb water and reduce the water demand for irrigation ● Developer will use native plants and perennials for landscaping within water resource buffers ● Water reuse systems may be implemented to reduce water usage ● Stormwater BMP's shall be designed to meet City of Farmington criteria for rate control and runoff volume reduction and criteria for MPCA water quality requirements Page 109 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 11 Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptations (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2) Contamination/ Hazardous Materials/ Wastes Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the potential environmental effects of generation/use/storage of hazardous waste and materials. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate hazardous waste or materials. Not applicable Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) Current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the local species and suitable habitat. Suitable habitat for species may become unsuitable due to land use changes, increased temperature, and increased runoff Climate-appropriate native plantings and stormwater BMPs will provide suitable habitat for small mammals, insects, and bird species. Page 110 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 12 Figure 5: Flood Impact Zones Pa g e 1 1 1 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 13 8. COVER TYPES AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided: ● A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting: o Wetlands (identified by Circular 39 type) o Watercourses (rivers, streams, creeks, ditches) o Lakes (identify public waters status and shoreland management classification) o Woodlands (break down by classes where possible) o Grassland (identify native and old field) o Cropland o Current development ● An overlay map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types. This map should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should be generally provided. The AUAR study area is approximately 343 acres and contains agricultural land and a golf course. There are several buildings and structures within the study area. Existing cover types within the study area are shown in Table 3 and on Figure 6 and were determined by reviewing 2024 aerial photography. Table 3: Existing Cover Types Cover Type Existing (acres) Scenario 1 (acres) Scenario 2 (acres) Wetlands and Shallow Lakes (less than 2 meters deep) 51.53 51.53 51.53 Rivers/Streams 2.59 2.59 2.59 Wooded/Forest 3 1.5 1.5 Farmstead 3.86 - 3.86 Agricultural Land 134 - 134 Lawn/Landscaping 148.02 116.78 82.52 Green Infrastructure (total from Table 4) - 7.0 3.5 Impervious Surface - 149.6 58 Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basins) - 14.0 5.5 Total 343 acres 343 acres 343 acres Page 112 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 14 Table 4: Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure Before (acres) Scenario 1 (acres) Scenario 2 (acres) Constructed Infiltration Systems (infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains, vegetated swales with impermeable check dams) 0 7.0 3.5 Total 0 7.0 3.5 Figure 6: Cover Types 9. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED AUAR Guidance: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major development scenario. Page 113 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 15 This list will help orient reviewers to the framework that will protect environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR. Table 5: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if applicable State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities To be applied for, if applicable Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable Construction Contingency Plan and Response Action Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if applicable Industrial Wastewater Permit To be applied for, if applicable Significant Industrial User Permit To be applied for, if applicable Environmental Assessment Worksheet8 To be applied for, if applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Temporary Groundwater Appropriation Permit for Construction Dewatering To be applied for, if applicable Water Appropriation Permit To be applied for, if applicable Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Installation Permit To be applied for, if applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Air Permit To be applied for, if applicable Regional Metropolitan Council Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable Sewer Connection Permit to Connect To be applied for, if applicable Direct Connection Permit To be applied for, if applicable Industrial Waste Discharge Permit To be applied for, if applicable County Dakota County Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable 8 If either scenario results in a proposed project that anticipates the need for more than 1,000,000 gallons of fuel storage for backup generators and may exceed the threshold for air emissions, a separate EAW will be required for these components of the project per Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. Page 114 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 16 Unit of Government Type of Application Status Watershed District Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Review of Diversions, Intercommunity flows (upon request from adjoining communities), project site size of 40 acres or more, and projects that are adjacent to or appear to impact watercourses or unique natural resources To be applied for, if applicable City City of Farmington Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for, if applicable Sign Permit To be applied for, if applicable Site Plan Approval To be applied for, if applicable Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if applicable Right-of-Way permit To be applied for, if applicable WCA Review and Approval To be applied for, if applicable Wetland Buffer Zone Management Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable Zoning Map Amendment To be applied for, if applicable Demolition Permit To be applied for, if applicable AUAR Approval In process Comprehensive Plan Amendment To be applied for, if applicable Re-Zoning Application In process 10. LAND USE a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands. The AUAR study area is located in a semirural area south of 220th Street W in Farmington, Minnesota. The study area consists of three existing parcels. The study area is bisected by 225th Street West, with a farmstead and agricultural land to the south, and a golf course to the north. Commercial and residential areas are present west and east of the golf course. West of the farmstead is agricultural land and a small solar farm, and east of the farmstead is agricultural land. North and south of the study area is agricultural land. There is one park, Prairie Pines Park, west of the study area. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 42.8 percent of the study area is considered prime farmland, 12.8 percent of the study area is considered farmland of statewide importance, and the remainder of the study area is considered prime farmland if protected from flooding. Impacts to farmland will occur as a result of Page 115 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 17 Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, however, the AUAR Study Area is within the city limits; therefore, no further evaluation or mitigation is required. ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan The City of Farmington adopted the City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan9 in 2019. The Comprehensive Plan designates a specific mix of future land use designations throughout the city and describes Farmington as an “emerging suburban edge” community that is continuing to develop into urbanized levels of development. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan update is to “establish the community’s long-term vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and maps to shape and manage future changes in the community.” Anticipated phasing for future development in the AUAR study area is predicted to occur between 2020 and 2040. The study area is identified as Agriculture, Low, Low/Medium, and Medium Density Residential, Commercial, and Parks/Open Space in the 2040 future land uses, see Table 6. The City is currently in the process of completing an off-cycle comprehensive plan that will be complete in the fall of 2024. This comprehensive plan update was initiated in 2023 and includes updates across the City. The comprehensive plan update will not be fully adopted until later 2024. Table 6: Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan designations within the AUAR Study Area Future Land Use Designation Purpose Agriculture Intended to preserve land where agricultural uses are currently occurring, rural residential not connected to urban services, as well as to create an urban reserve for such time when there is a need for additional urban development and urban services may be extended. Low Density Residential Land guided for development of single-family detached dwellings, including manufactured homes, connected to urban services with a density range of 1.0 to 3.5 units per net acre. Low/Medium Density Residential Land guided for a variety of low to medium density housing types, including single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, and twin homes that are connected to urban services with a density range of 3.5 to 6.0 dwelling units per net acre. It also incorporates existing older residential development in the city. 9 Source: City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_745675/File/Government/Departments/PlanningandZoning/2040/2040CompPla n_Dec2020.pdf Page 116 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 18 Future Land Use Designation Purpose Medium Density Residential Land guided for medium density multi-family housing types, including townhouses and row houses, in areas with access to jobs, services, public facilities, transit and urban services with a density range of 6.0 to 12.0 dwelling units per net acre. Commercial Land guided for commercial businesses, such as retail sales of goods, services, food and beverage, entertainment, and offices. Parks/Open Space Land guided for recreational and leisure opportunities through publicly owned land and recognizes vital environmental resources including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan 10 is used to guide the County’s housing, transportation, county facilities, parks, and land use planning over the next 20 years. Farmington is classified as an emerging suburban edge community. Communities with the emerging suburban edge classification include areas managing rapid growth and change. These areas have significant amounts of land for future development. Primary concerns in suburban edge communities include protecting water supplies and preserving open space. In Dakota County, cities independently administer zoning and comprehensive planning land use controls; the County does not have land use or zoning authority in Farmington. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. AUAR Guidance: Water-related land use management districts should be delineated on appropriate maps, and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area are envisioned, this should be discussed. Existing Zoning According to the City of Farmington Zoning Map 11 (Figure 9), the majority of the study area is zoned as R-2, Low/Medium Density Residential. The study area is also zoned as R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), P/OS (Parks/Open Space), and B-1 (Highway Business). The AUAR study area is currently used as a golf course and for agricultural purposes (crop cultivation), but in the future, agricultural land in the City of Farmington is expected to be developed for different land uses. 10 Source: Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Available at: https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Government/Planning/CompPlan/Documents/2040ComprehensivePlanAmendment.pdf 11 Source: City of Farmington Zoning Map. Available at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1615bea8f9cd47199e8432980612823e Page 117 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 19 Any new development, redevelopment, is required to be consistent with the current City’s Comprehensive Plan. FEMA National Flood Hazard According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map (panel numbers 27037C0219E, 27037C0238E, 27037C0360E, and 27037C0380E, effective 12/02/2011), the majority of the AUAR study area is located in an area of minimal flooding area. The southern portion of the study area is located in Zone AE, a 100-year floodplain. No impacts to the floodplain are anticipated. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization The study area is located within the Vermillion River watershed, which is administered by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO). The VRWJPO seeks to protect surface water, ground water, and natural resources within the Vermillion River watershed. Jurisdiction of the VRWJPO is provided under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and the Metropolitan Area Local Water Management Rules. A Water Quality Corridor extends through the southern portion of the AUAR study area. This type of waterway classification has specific vegetated buffer or setback requirements that could have an impact to development scenarios evaluated in the AUAR. Farmington Surface Water Management Plan The Farmington Surface Water Management Plan Wetland Classifications Map 12 identifies wetlands within the study area. This plan lays out the City’s rules regarding development within and near wetlands. Development adjacent to wetlands must adhere to several standards listed in Farmington Wetland Ordinance 10-6-17 Wetland Standards including the buffer width and setbacks listed in Table 7. The City of Farmington uses a functional value index to define wetlands classifications. The functional value index is based on a weighted average that incorporates the wetland community and the functional value. Per the Farmington Wetland Ordinance, “To achieve no net loss of wetlands except as authorized by a wetland alteration permit issued by the city, a person may not drain, grade, fill, remove healthy native vegetation, or otherwise alter or destroy a wetland of any size or type. Any alteration to a wetland permitted by a wetland alteration permit, must be fully mitigated so that there is no net loss of wetlands. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002).” 12 Available at: https://cityoffarmington.hosted.civiclive.com/government/departments/engineering/engineering_comprehensive_plans Page 118 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 20 Table 7: Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks13 Wetland Classification Functional Value Index Average Buffer Width (Feet) Minimum Buffer (Feet) Structure Setback from Outer Edge of Buffer (Feet) Protect 1-0.6 75 75 10 Manage 1 0.59-0.5 50 30 10 Manage 2 0.49-0.3 30 25 10 Shoreland The development is not located within shoreland. iv. If any critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those storing hazardous materials, or those housing occupants who may be insufficiently mobile) are proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for localized flooding, describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and event intensity. No critical facilities are proposed as part of the project. b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. AUAR Guidance: The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the AUAR should be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should be discussed. If development of the AUAR will interfere or change the use of any existing designated parks, recreation areas, or trails, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in conjunction with development of the AUAR area. The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1. The AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to Items 6, 9, 11, 18, and others, it must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the 13 Source: City of Farmington Wetland Ordinance. https://cdnsm5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_745675/File/Government/Departments/NaturalResources/Water/WetlandOrdin ance.pdf Page 119 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 21 document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements. Existing Land Use Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 The existing agricultural land and golf course is expected to transition to different land uses as development in the AUAR study area progresses and an update to the Comprehensive Plan will be needed. Existing Zoning Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Scenario 1 proposes technology park use. A rezoning is needed for the proposed development scenario. Scenario 2 proposes residential, commercial, and agriculture use. These uses would be consistent with the current comprehensive plan. 2040 Comprehensive Plan The city has certified that the updated 2040 Comprehensive Plan will comply with the requirements set forth in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1. Scenario 1 Scenario 1, which includes technology park use, will require a comprehensive plan amendment. The City is currently working on an off-cycle comprehensive plan amendment which will update the identified zoning and land uses for the properties within the AUAR study area. The southern parcels were annexed into the City in the Spring of 2024 and are currently zoned agricultural use. The comprehensive plan update will amend the land use and zoning for that portion of the study area for industrial use. Scenario 2 Scenario 2, which includes residential, commercial, and agriculture use, is consistent with the land uses allowed under the comprehensive plan. Farmington Surface Water Management Plan Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Jurisdictional wetlands and wetland buffer areas in the AUAR study area will be avoided to the greatest extent practicable for the development proposed in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. The development is not anticipating to impose on any wetland buffers. Prairie Pines Park The development proposed in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 will not have impacts on the Prairie Pines Park as it is approximately one-quarter mile from the proposed development site. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above. Page 120 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 22 Scenario 1 would require a rezoning and a comprehensive plan amendment or update. It is anticipated that this will be completed through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. An off-cycle comprehensive plan update is currently in process and will be include the needed updates based on Scenario 1. Scenario 2 is in compliance with the current comprehensive plan; therefore, no mitigation would be needed. Page 121 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 23 Figure 7: Existing Land Use Pa g e 1 2 2 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 24 Figure 8: Future Land Use Pa g e 1 2 3 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 25 Figure 9: Existing Zoning Map 11. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY/LANDFORMS a. Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features. AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified. According to the Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, the AUAR study area lies above Paleozoic bedrock. The bedrock formation generally lies within the lower Ordovician system, which consists of dolostone and shaly, including the Shakopee formation, and Oneota dolomite of the Prairie du Chien Group. The mean depth to bedrock is approximately 196 feet below ground surface. Bedrock is composed of sandstone and chert. There are no known sinkholes or unconfined/shallow aquifers located within the AUAR study area. There are karst conditions located approximately 5,000 feet from the study area. Page 124 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 26 According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), karst is a landscape formed by the dissolution of a layer or layers of soluble bedrock, such as limestone, dolomite, or gypsum. One of the distinctive features of karst landscapes is the potential presence of caves and sinkholes. Cracks and fissures form and grow in the bedrock as runoff passes through the ground, forming passages, caves, and possibly even sinkholes. Prior to development, the study area will be investigated to identify subsurface voids, cavities, fractures, or other discontinuities which could pose an environmental concern or a construction hazard to future development. If karst conditions are found to be present, the project proposer will follow City of Farmington and MPCA design guidelines. Karst landscapes provide conditions where runoff and potential contaminants can flow more easily into groundwater. According to the Geologic Atlas of Dakota County (Minnesota Geological Survey, 1990), groundwater is present at approximately 20 feet below grade, excluding the wetlands located within the study area. With the proposed stormwater BMPs and proposed construction, no adverse impacts to groundwater are anticipated as a result of the project. b. Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii. AUAR Guidance: The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. A standard soils map for the area should be included. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil, the area comprises 17 different soil types. Soil information is included in Table 8 and Figure 10. The erosion hazard rating included in Table 8. indicates the hazard of soil loss from off-road areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. Within the project site, 3.6% of the soil surface is mapped with a “moderate” rating, indicating that some erosion is likely in these areas and that erosion control measures may be needed. The remaining 96.4% of the study area is mapped with a “slight” rating, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions. Topography within the study area varies from 892 feet in elevation in the northeast corner of the site to 930 feet in elevation in the south-central portion of the site. The northern portion of the study area generally drains to the northeast towards local depressions, or along roadside ditches. Page 125 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 27 The soils across the AUAR study area primarily consists of hydraulic group B and are well-suited for infiltration, and more specifically biofiltration. Soil infiltration and stormwater management are discussed further in Section 12. Scenario 1 and 2 Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 will require over 1,000,000 total cubic yards of excavation over 275 acres. Where appropriate, slope stabilization will be provided by means of vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other standard methods of erosion and sediment control. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 will require compliance with the VRWJPO and the City of Farmington’s erosion and sediment control standards. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Construction Stormwater Permit (SWPPP) will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the AUAR study area. Table 8: Soil Types Map Unit Symbo l Hydrologi c Soil Group Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percen t of AOI Farmland Classificatio n Hydric Rating Erosion Hazard Rating 39B B Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 43.8 12.6% All areas are prime farmland 0 Slight 41B A Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 11.3 3.3% Farmland of statewide importance 1 Slight 98 B/D Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded 1.3 0.4% Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season 95 Slight 129 B/D Cylinder loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 48.0 13.8% All areas are prime farmland 15 Slight 208 B/D Kato silty clay loam 34.3 9.9% Prime farmland if drained 95 Slight 213B B/D Klinger silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes 0.7 0.2% All areas are prime farmland 5 Slight Page 126 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 28 Map Unit Symbo l Hydrologi c Soil Group Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percen t of AOI Farmland Classificatio n Hydric Rating Erosion Hazard Rating 252 B/D Marshan silty clay loam 87.4 25.1% Prime farmland if drained 90 Slight 255 B/D Mayer silt loam 12.7 3.6% Prime farmland if drained 90 Slight 301B B Lindstrom silt loam, till plain, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.4 0.1% All areas are prime farmland 5 Moderate 411A B Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 30.7 8.8% All areas are prime farmland 0 Slight 411B B Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 23.5 6.8% All areas are prime farmland 0 Slight 411C B Waukegan silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 10.3 3.0% Farmland of statewide importance 0 Moderate 415B B Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 17.5 5.0% Farmland of statewide importance 0 Slight 539 C/D Klossner muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes 5.1 1.5% Farmland of statewide importance 100 Slight 611C A Hawick gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 19.0 5.5% Not prime farmland 0 Slight 1895B B Carmi loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 1.7 0.5% All areas are prime farmland 5 Moderate 1896B B Ostrander- Carmi loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0.2 0.0% All areas are prime farmland 0 Slight Page 127 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 29 Figure 10: Soil Types Pa g e 1 2 8 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 30 12. WATER RESOURCES AUAR Guidance: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan. a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below. i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. Kimley-Horn completed a wetland delineation on May 30 and June 13, 2024, and identified ten wetlands within the study area, described in Table 10. A formal wetland approval process will be initiated with Dakota County to review the delineated wetland boundaries and types; a NOD has not yet been issued. According to the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), there are three flowline features within the southern portion of the study area. The main flowline transecting the study area east to west is the South Branch Vermillion River. A MPCA 303d Impaired Water is depicted aligning with the mapped NHD feature in the southern portion of the study area, labeled Vermilion River, South Branch (AUID 07040001-706). The Impaired Water designation is described in Table 9. A DNR Public Watercourse is depicted aligning with the mapped NHD and impaired water feature, but stops just before the study area, approximately 440 feet southeast of the study area boundary. There is one unnamed DNR Public Water basin within one mile of the study area to the west. The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area is not within one mile of the AUAR Study Area. The AUAR study area is located within the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization area. The City was issued a MCPA MS-4 permit in 2021 and have adopted water resource standards into their City ordinances. The City has adopted ordinances in conformance with the minimums established by the VRWJPO Standards. As a result, VRWJPO approvals are not required as those requirements will be governed by the City. Runoff from the study area generally drains northeast towards an unnamed stream (AUID 07040001-668), see Figure 11. Page 129 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 31 Figure 11: Surface Water Resources Pa g e 1 3 0 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 32 Table 9: Impaired Waters Within One Mile of the AUAR Study Area Assessment Unit ID Name Impaired Used Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 07040001-706 Vermillion River, South Branch Aquatic recreation Approved for fecal coliform Page 131 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 33 Figure 12: Wetland Delineation Summary Page 132 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 34 Table 10: Delineation Summary Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type Notes Wetland Classification 14 Wetland 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin/Floodpl ain Wet Meadow Shrub/Carr Type 1 Type 2 Type 6 Wetland complex located in the southern portion of the study area, in the floodplain of the South Branch Vermillion River. The complex consisted of fresh wet meadow plant community on the margins adjacent to the agricultural fields and shrub/carr plant communities in the southeast portion of the wetland and along the banks of the South Branch Vermillion River. Protect/Manage 1 Wetland 2 Seasonally Flooded Basin Fresh Wet Meadow Type 1 Type 2 Wetland complex located in a wooded area in the northeast corner of the study area. The complex consisted of a seasonally flooded basin within the forested area, as well as a fresh wet meadow where the wooded portion transitions into an open area. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape. Manage 1/Manage 3 Wetland 3 Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 1 Wetland 3 is a seasonally flooded basin located adjacent to the northern boundary of the study area, south of the golf course driveway turn out. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding golf course and roadway. The wetland does not appear to have any surficial connections. Manage 1 Wetland 4 Shallow Pond Type 5 Wetland 4 is an excavated shallow pond, referred to as the Fountain Valley Golf Course Pond. The wetland is located directly south of the golf course clubhouse and collects water from the surrounding golf green. The wetland does not appear to have any surficial connections. Manage 1 Wetland 5 Shallow Pond Type 5 Wetland 5 is an excavated shallow pond directly west of Wetland 4. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape. The wetland does not appear to have any surficial connections. Manage 1 14 Wetlands within the study area are classified in the Farmington Local Surface Water Management Plan. Available at: https://cityoffarmington.hosted.civiclive.com/government/departments/engineering/engineering_comprehensive_plans Page 133 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 35 Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type Notes Wetland Classification 14 Wetland 6 Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 1 Wetland 6 is a seasonally flooded basin dominated by reed canary grass located on the west side of a wooded area in the eastern portion of the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding golf green and does not appear to have any surficial connections. Protect Wetland 7 Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 5 Wetland 7 is an excavated shallow pond dominated by cattail and common reed, located in the northwest portion of the Fountain Valley golf course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape and does not appear to have any surficial connections. Manage 1 Wetland 8 Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 1 Wetland 8 is a linear seasonally flooded basin located between a wooded area and a golfing green in the northwest portion of the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape and does not appear to have any surficial connections. Not determined Wetland 9 Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 1 Wetland 9 is a small seasonally flooded basin located in a wooded depression in the west portion of the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape and does not appear to have any surficial connections. Not determined Wetland 10 Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 5 Wetland 10 is a seasonally flooded basin located in a wooded depression in the northwest portion of the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape and does not appear to have any surficial connections. Not determined Page 134 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 36 ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this. According to the Geologic Atlas of Dakota County (Minnesota Geological Survey, 1990), groundwater is present at greater than 20 feet in the northern and southern portions, and less than 20 feet in the central portion. Based on Dakota County’s well records, there are six wells located within the AUAR study area, see Table 11. Wells located within the AUAR study area would be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to redevelopment within the AUAR study area per MPCA and MDH well sealing requirements. If unidentified wells are found, the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Health must be contacted to determine the course of action, which may include sealing, relocating, or preserving by a licensed well contractor according to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725. The southern portion of the AUAR study area is located within a wellhead protection area (Hastings) and a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) (Hastings, high vulnerability). Coordination with the city would be required to verify suitability of stormwater infiltration on site due to the DWSMA requirements. Table 11: Wells within the AUAR Study Area Well Unique Number Index Status Well Use Well Depth (feet) 146869 Active Domestic 247 270148 Active - 250 W05102 Active Domestic 125 W05103 Active Irrigation 250 W05838 Active Irrigation 385 H3294 Sealed Abandoned 14 Page 135 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 37 Figure 13: Groundwater Resources Pa g e 1 3 6 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 38 b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects below. i. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected or treated at the site. AUAR Guidance: Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR: ● Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an AUAR process ● Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area; the basis of flow estimates should be explained ● The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows should be identified ● If not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction should be described ● The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive sewer plan and (for metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU’s wastewater treatment system compared to the flows from the AUAR area; any necessary improvements should be described. ● If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR, the guidance in the February 2000 edition of the EAW Guidelines on page 16 regarding item 18b under Residential development should be followed. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. The northern portion of the AUAR study area (north of 225th St) is located within the 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and the south portion of the study area is located in the “Orderly Annexation Area”; therefore, a comprehensive plan update is needed to connect the southern portion of the AUAR study area into the existing sanitary sewer system. Data centers can have a wide range of cooling options which impact the wastewater discharges depending on either the use of a non-water cooled or a water-cooled system. For Scenario 1, it is anticipated that a water-cooled system will be utilized. It is anticipated that Scenario 1 will generate a peak day discharge of industrial non-contact Page 137 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 39 cooling water of a range between 970,000 and 2,350,000 gallons per day (GPD) for an approximately 6-month period. It is anticipated that one-third of wastewater generated will be industrial wastewater and two-thirds will be for domestic wastewater for the campus. The domestic wastewater will have typical BOD and TSS characteristics as normal domestic strength waste for a typical office setting. The industrial cooling water will contain little to no organic waste and will have mineral concentrations as much as 10 to 100 times the levels in the drinking water depending on the type of water treatment that will be required for the system. For Scenario 2, the anticipated GPD for wastewater was estimated using the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) tool. It is anticipated that up to 300,000 GPD of wastewater would be generated for Scenario 2. Wastewater discharges for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are summarized in Table 12. Table 12: Wastewater Discharges Scenario 1 970,000 - 2,350,000 GPD Scenario 2 300,000 GPD Wastewater from the development proposed in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 is proposed to be collected by an onsite conveyance system that will route wastewater to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Interceptor. It is anticipated that wastewater from the property will flow to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in the City of Empire, Dakota County. The Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP is an advanced secondary treatment plant with ultraviolet disinfection. As of May 2023, the plant has a maximum capacity of 28.6 million gallons per day. The plant currently experiences average flows of 10.7 million gallons per day. Based on the wastewater quality and flows, MCES will review the plant to ensure no detrimental performance from accepting the flows. In the event that there are some wastewater flow or constituent concerns, storage may help attenuate peaks, and other forms of industrial wastewater discharge will be investigated. The developer will consider incorporating water reuse within its operations as practicable to reduce this impact on wastewater capacity for the region. To offset the peak daily flows to the MCES system, a flow equalization system or some other method of disposal of the cooling water may be implemented to maintain the anticipated flows. If needed, the proposed project may require a permit from MPCA for a cooling water discharge, a flow equalization tank, or other reuse options of the cooling water will be evaluated. The developments proposed in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are consistent with the City’s planned sanitary sewer usage from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the north portion of the site, however, the south portion of the site is located outside of the current Page 138 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 40 MUSA staging area. A comprehensive plan amendment may be needed to re-guide the staging from outside of the MUSA to within the MUSA. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. No subsurface sewage treatment systems are anticipated within the AUAR study area for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges. No wastewater discharge to surface waters is anticipated for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. If needed, the project proposer will evaluate surface discharge of treated non-contact cooling water with the MPCA and DNR as a potential partial relief to wastewater treatment plant discharge. ii. Stormwater – Describe changes in surface hydrology resulting from change of land cover. Describe the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the project site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss environmental effects from stormwater discharges on receiving waters post- construction, including how the project will affect runoff volume, discharge rate, and change in pollutants. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity, and amount with this discussion. For projects requiring NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater permit coverage, state the total number of acres that will be disturbed by the project and describe the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including specific best management practices to address soil erosion and sedimentation during and after project construction. Discuss permanent stormwater management plans, including methods of achieving volume reduction to restore or maintain the natural hydrology of the site using green infrastructure practices or other stormwater management practices. Identify any receiving waters that have construction-related water impairments or are classified as special as defined in the Construction Stormwater permit. Describe additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in addition to that in EAW Guidelines: ● It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues ● A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided Page 139 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 41 ● The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the design standards that will be followed. ● If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special analyses: o Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs. o Trout streams: If stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream, an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included. Environmental Effects Stormwater runoff can cause a number of environmental problems. When untreated stormwater drains from manmade locations such as agricultural fields, impervious surfaces, and construction sites, it can carry sediments and/or pollutants that harm aquatic ecosystems and wildlife. Existing conditions There is currently minimal impervious surface area within the study area, largely along the central access road and other impervious surfaces associated with the golf course. Runoff from the study area generally drains south towards the South Branch Vermillion River, see Figure 11 and Figure 12. During Construction During construction, erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to prevent impacts to aquatic ecosystems per the City of Page 140 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 42 Farmington Design Standards. The following design/construction standards are to be adhered to during construction: • Provide necessary precautions to prevent soil erosion, damage to adjacent property and control runoff to surface water. • The erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained and repaired throughout construction and until such time as the property has been either sodded or a seeded vegetative cover has taken hold. • Temporary rock entrances are required on every construction site and are required after backfilling of foundation. • Exposed soil, including stock piles shall be stabilized immediately where activity has permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of this site and will not resume for a period of time exceeding 14 days. • After connecting drainage ditches or swales that drain water from the site, the last two hundred (200) linear feet must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to surface water. • If dewatering is to take place, adequate treatment must be provided so that nuisance conditions will not result from the discharge. • The City will require water quality ponds to be designed with outlet skimmers, energy dissipation, sediment storage, stabilized banks and permanent vegetation to maximize pollutant removal and control. • Design for minimum freeboard of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level, or 1 foot above the emergency overflow elevation whichever is more restrictive. • Compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, as well as require conveyance channels be constructed to withstand velocities from a 10-year storm event without erosion. Post Construction Overall impervious surface area is proposed to increase in Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, increasing the runoff rate. To mitigate this, the stormwater basins on-site are proposed to be sized to accommodate runoff from these impervious areas and the outlet control structures designed to discharge at a rate less than that in the existing condition. Under Scenario 1, stormwater from the impervious areas of the site would be directed to stormwater management BMPs on-site where the stormwater is proposed to be treated according to the published MPCA guidelines and City of Farmington requirements. Infiltration and filtration is discussed further below. As it leaves the site, stormwater will be routed to the existing wetland basins to the north or existing river to the south of the site. Pretreatment of stormwater is required prior to discharge to an infiltration basin and would be required to infiltrated in less than 48 hours per state requirements. The soils across the AUAR study area primarily consists of hydraulic group B and are well-suited for infiltration, and more specifically biofiltration. The project will be required to meet the City of Farmington’s Engineering Guidelines and Surface Water Management Plan requirements. The project will be required to retain the 100-year, 24- Page 141 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 43 hour rainfall event, as well as the larger of either 2-year, 24-hour storm events or 1 inch of runoff from impervious surface. To meet the City’s rate control standards, runoff rates should not exceed rates for the 1-year, 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year 24-hour (MSE 3 MN distribution or Atlas 14 nested distribution) rainfall events. Additionally, new stormwater infrastructure will be designed to meet the City’s requirements for no net increase of total phosphorus and total suspended solids to the maximum extent possible. Finally, existing off-site flows directed to the project will need to be retained and managed on-site. Additional detailed stormwater analysis will be provided at later stages of the design phase. The following stormwater management requirements will be adhered to: ● Farmington City Code, Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 5: Post Construction Stormwater Management ● City of Farmington Local Surface Water Management Plan ● Vermillion River Joint Watershed Powers Organization Standards ● National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements will be determined for each new development within the AUAR study area. ● City of Farmington Engineering Guidelines Additionally, to mitigate additional winter salt use associated with the planned increase in impervious surfaces, the project proposer will implement a chloride management plan for the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. iii. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency connections. AUAR Guidance: If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed. Page 142 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 44 A Water Use Appropriations Permit would be obtained if permanent dewatering is determined to be necessary for construction of development in Scenario 1 and 2. A Water Use Appropriation permit is required for permanent water dewatering and applies to users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or one million gallons per year. Existing Conditions: The AUAR study area is currently an agricultural field, rural residential farmstead and a golf course. The agricultural field and rural residential farmstead are currently served by private wells and the golf course is currently served by a multiple wells for domestic use and irrigation. The golf course property is served by a 6-inch watermain and contains irrigation wells for the golf course use. The water supply for the study area will be obtained from the City of Farmington. The City’s water system consists of seven active wells, one elevated storage tank, one standpipe, and a network of trunk and lateral watermains varying in sizes from 4-inches to 24-inches. The groundwater wells range in depth from 402 to 512 feet deep and draw water from the Jordan aquifer and the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer. According to the City’s comprehensive plan, the City’s firm pumping capacity is 7,200 gallons per minute as of 2019. Data centers can have a wide range of cooling options which impact the water demand depending on either the use of a non-water cooled or a water-cooled system. It is anticipated that Scenario 1 will utilize a water-cooled system. Based on the anticipated size of Scenario 1, it could have a peak water demand up to approximately 2.35 million gallons per day (MGPD) during the summer months. However, the water use could be much less based on the cooling technologies that are employed in the data centers and based on the time of year. It is estimated that under Scenario 2, 382,000 gallons per day for peak water flow would be utilized. Water demands for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are summarized in Table 13. Table 13: Water Demand Scenario 1 Demand 2,350,000 GPD Scenario 2 Demand 382,000 GPD The City is completing a water study and reviewing the model to understand the potential water demand and needs for future growth and projects within the City including Scenarios 1 and 2. The City is anticipating the need for additional storage in the AUAR study area vicinity and is in the process of siting 2.5 million gallons of additional storage utilizing an elevated storage tank. The City’s would potentially need to revise their water appropriations permit with the DNR for additional pumping capacity or a new well. Page 143 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 45 Using the pumping capacities identified in the existing water system plan and assuming a capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute for Well 9, the pumping capacity of the city production wells is shown in Table 14. Table 14: City Production Wells Pumping Capacity Well No. Well field Depth (feet) Rate (gpm) Year Constructed Aquifer Status 1 South 402 1000 1938 Prairie du Chien/Jordan Active 2 South 399 Prairie du Chien/Jordan Inactive 3 South 424 600 1959 Prairie du Chien/Jordan Active 4 North 477 1000 1973 Jordan Active 5 North 417 1200 1999 Jordan Active 6 North 485 2000 2002 Jordan Active 7 North 501 1400 2002 Jordan Active 8 North 460 2000 2006 Jordan Active 9 North 477 2000 2019 Jordan Active 10 To Be Installed As Well No. 1 is seldom used, the city intends to decommission the installation in 2024. The pumping capacity with one of the 2,000 gpm wells being out of service after Well No. 1 is decommissioned is 11.81 MGD. The 2020 demands were 2.14 MGD and 5.77 MGD for average daily and maximum daily demands, respectively. In February of 2021, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) authorized an amendment of the city’s DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1959-0725 to authorize the use of Well No. 9, and, additionally, the withdrawal of up to 1,000 million gallons of water per year for municipal/public water supply. The City’s recent water use, as identified in the annual report to the DNR, is described in Table 15. Table 15: City of Farmington Water Use Year Water Use (gallons) 2023 834,984,000 2022 810,939,011 2021 824,915,341 2020 749,989,000 Table 14 refers to Well 10 as “to be installed”, however, a Groundwater Technical Review completed by the DNR in 2020 concluded that the annual use volumes have been decreasing since 2007. This indicates that a request for increase in annual volume does not appear likely before the next WSP in 2027. Page 144 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 46 The City has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report will review the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. If additional capacity is needed in this area of the City, the City of Farmington would complete a well siting study and analysis. iv. Surface Waters 1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed and identify those probable locations. The development proposed in both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 is planned in a manner to avoid impacting the wetlands in the AUAR study area. If development plans change, the project proposer would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local wetland requirements including wetland mitigation requirements through the purchase of wetland banking credits. The City of Farmington has buffer requirements outlined in the Farmington Wetland Ordinance that may be applicable to adjacent development. More information on the Farmington Wetland Ordinance can be found in Section 10. 2) Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage. AUAR Guidance: Water surface use need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin recreational water bodies. Page 145 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 47 No alterations to other surface waters are anticipated as part of either development scenario. The AUAR study does not contain and is not adjacent to any recreational water bodies. 13. CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTES a. Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in February 2024. Regulatory database information pertaining to the study area and surrounding area was obtained. Sites identified within and adjacent to the study area are listed in Table 16. There are also three A/C units, one pesticide storage tank and chemical pesticide sprayer, two aboveground storage tanks, two rusty unmarked drums, overhead power distribution lines along the eastern boundary, natural gas pipeline markers, de minimis dumping of various materials, and one well located within the study area. Table 16: Phase I ESA: Identified Sites Site Name Address Description Risk Alyn Angus Farm 2806 225th St W Former City of Farmington dump site Undetermined Formerly Garvey Construction (GC Construction and Farmington Truck) facility 22098 Canton Ct Historic spill Low b. Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling. AUAR Guidance: Generally, only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be included. According to Dakota County Ordinances 110 and 111, Dakota County will ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 473.811. Page 146 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 48 Construction Generated Solid Waste Construction of Scenario 1 and 2 would generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would either be recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and guidelines. Operation Generated Solid Waste Recycling for industrial buildings in the AUAR study area will be conducted in accordance with the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section 115A.552). Furthermore, Dakota County Ordinance 15.08 requires all solid waste haulers to offer source separated recycling services and curbside pick-up within the county. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 would generate new demands on solid waste management and sanitation services provided in the project area as summarized in Table 17. Table 17: Estimated Solid Waste Generation15 Existing Conditions Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Residential Units 1 0 675 Residential Waste (tons per year)16 1 0 681 Non-Residential Area (square feet) 5,800 2,530,000 100,000 Non-Residential Waste (tons per year) 33 2,184 570 Total Waste (tons per year) 34 2,184 1,251 c. Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Potential locations of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations). Scenario 1 could include several hundred diesel-powered backup generators for emergency use. Each of these generators would have a 6,100-gallon diesel belly tank that will be installed and maintained in compliance with applicable state regulations for aboveground storage tanks, including: ● New tanks and piping would be designed to applicable industry standards and guidance. 15 The US Environmental Protection Agency’s website titled “National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling” was consulted as a basis for estimating municipal solid waste generation for the proposed development. 16 It is estimated that 4.9 pounds of municipal solid waste (MSW) will be generated per person per day. An average household occupancy of 2.62 was applied to the estimated residential units based on 2015-2019 US Census Bureau data. Page 147 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 49 ● Tank upgrades and repairs would follow applicable industry standards. ● Tank owners would clearly label all tanks and piping. ● Underground storage tanks of any size will not be used as above ground storage tanks. ● Spill prevention and clean up plan Scenario 2 is not anticipated to include any storage tanks. d. Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling. AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Not applicable. 14. FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (RARE FEATURES) a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site. AUAR Guidance: The description of fish and wildlife resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on the cover types map. Any differences in impacts between development scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion. The majority of the land within the AUAR study area has been previously disturbed through farming and recreational use (golf course), but also includes wetlands, dense wooded areas, and a stream. Suitable habitat is present throughout the study area. Potential suitable habitat for listed federal and state species is present within the AUAR study area. Habitat within the study area include woodlands, wetlands, and the South Branch of the Vermillion River, as seen in Figure 6. Wildlife that can be found within the study area include fishes, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. No MnDNR native plant communities or Minnesota Biological Sites (MBS sites) of biodiversity significance were identified within a mile of the AUAR study area. A MnDNR Regionally Significant Ecological Area is located approximately one mile to the southeast of the study area. b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe results. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include Page 148 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 50 the reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-si te surveys should be depicted on a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result. State-Listed Species Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) in April 2024 per license agreement LA2024-006 for the study area and an area within a one-mile buffer for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species. The review identified the state-endangered loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) within the vicinity of the study area. Loggerhead Shrike The loggerhead shrike is a Minnesota state-listed endangered species and is documented within a mile of the AUAR study area. The loggerhead shrike is a species of open landscapes and in Minnesota is largely restricted to areas that were historically prairie or oak savanna. While Minnesota's forested regions may have large tracts of cultivated fields and non-native grasslands, loggerhead shrikes rarely occur in these areas. Nests are well hidden in trees or brush and are usually less than 2 meters above the ground. Because the study area is largely agricultural or non-native uncropped areas, the potential for the loggerhead shrike to occur in the study area is low. Federally-Listed Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Service Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool was used to identify federally listed species within or near the AUAR Study Area. This review identified two federally listed endangered species, northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis). This review also identified a federally listed proposed endangered species, the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), a federally listed candidate species, monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) and a non-essential experimental population, whooping crane (Grus americana). There are no critical habitats identified within the study area. The entirety of the AUAR study area was identified as within the High Potential Zone for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee. The IPaC Species List is included in Appendix D. Northern Long-Eared Bat A record for the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is located within Dakota County. Based on the 2024 USFWS Range Map for the NLEB, there are no known records of the NLEB in Farmington. NLEB was designated a federally endangered species by USFWS in April 2023. According to the MnDNR, in the southern part of the state, NLEB may use attics, bridges, caves, mines, and buildings for hibernating. In summer, the species is often found within forested habitats, especially around wetlands. Summer roosts may include trees, in buildings, behind signs or shutters, caves, mines, and quarry tunnels. Suitable summer roost trees include live or dead hardwood trees which have shingle-like bark, and trees with cavities, splits, crevices, hollow sections, and other damage. The spread of white-nose syndrome across the eastern portion of Page 149 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 51 the United States has become the major threat to the NLEB, with an estimated decline of more than 97% in affected colonies. Suitable habitat (several trees) was identified within the study area. Because suitable habitat for the NLEB exists within the study area, and the NLEB is known to occur in Dakota County, there is potential for the NLEB to occur within the study area. Tricolored Bat The tricolored bat was proposed to be designated as a federally endangered species by the USFWS in September 2022. According to the USFWS, during the winter, tricolored bats are often found in caves and abandoned mines. During the spring, summer, and fall, tricolored bats are found in forested habitats where they roost in trees, primarily among leaves of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees, but may also be found in Spanish moss, pine trees, and occasionally human structures. Like the NLEB, the spread of white-nose syndrome across the eastern portion of the United States has become the major threat to the tricolored bat, with an estimated decline of more than 90% in affected colonies. Suitable habitat (several trees) was identified with the study area. According to the DNR’s Rare Species Guide, there are no known maternity colonies within the state of Minnesota and the tricolored bat has never been found in large numbers. Additionally, there are no known sighting records of the tricolored bat near Farmington. While suitable habitat for the tricolored bat exists within the study area, because there are no known sighting records of the tricolored bat in the vicinity of the study area and known sightings in the state are historically low, it is possible but unlikely for the tricolored bat to occur within the study area. Monarch Butterfly The monarch butterfly is a candidate species for official listing by the USFWS. The preferred habitat for this species is prairie, grasslands, or wetlands where milkweed and flowers are present. According to the USFWS, there are many potential reasons for the butterfly’s decline, including habitat loss at breeding and overwintering sites, disease, pesticides, logging at overwintering sites, and climate change. Suitable habitat could be present in the unmanicured portions of the study area; therefore, there is potential for the monarch butterfly to occur within the study area. Whooping Crane The whooping crane is designated as an experimental population, non-essential species by the USFWS. Non-essential experimental populations are treated as threatened species on National Wildlife Refuge and National Park land and as a proposed species on private land. The preferred habitat for the species includes shallow marshes and adjacent, open grasslands or cultivated agricultural land. The Proposed Action would be completed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. There are no known sighting records of the whooping crane near Farmington. While suitable habitat for the whooping crane exists within the study area, because there are no known sighting records of the whooping crane in the vicinity of the study area, it is possible but unlikely for the whooping crane to occur within the study area. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Page 150 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 52 The rusty patched bumble bee is listed as a federally endangered species by USFWS. From April through October this species uses underground nests in upland grasslands, shrublands, and forest edges, and forages where nectar and pollen are available. From October through April the species overwinters under tree litter in upland forests and woodlands. The study area is within a mapped rusty patched bumble bee high potential zone. In high potential zones, USFWS will assume the rusty patched bumble bee to be present in any suitable habitat. Suitable foraging habitat could be present in the unmanicured portions of the study area, and suitable overwintering habitat could be present in the forested portions of the study area. There is potential for the rusty patched bumble bee to occur within the study area. c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species. State-listed Species Loggerhead Shrike Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 will require tree clearing. The trees and shrubs located within the AUAR study area may represent suitable habitat for loggerhead shrikes. Tree and shrub removal activities related to the redevelopment of the site may have a negative impact on this species. Federally-listed Species Northern Long-eared Bat Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 will require tree clearing. According to the USFWS, tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season (June 1 to August 15 in Minnesota) when females are forming maternity roosting colonies, and the pups cannot yet fly. On November 30, 2022, the USFWS published in the Federal Register (87 FR 73488) a final rule which reclassified this species as an endangered species. The rule went into effect March 31, 2023. USFWS issued updated range-wide NLEB survey guidelines in March 2024. Tree removal is anticipated for the project. All trees will be cleared in the inactive season (November 1- March 31). The Proposed Action is unlikely to adversely affect the NLEB. Tricolored Bat Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 will require tree clearing. Similar to the NLEB, tree removal can negatively impact tricolored bats. According to the USFWS, the tricolored bat uses forested areas for roosting and foresting during the spring, summer, and fall. Tree removal is anticipated for the project. All trees will be cleared in the inactive season (November 1- March 31). The Proposed Action is unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of the tricolored bat. Monarch Butterfly The Proposed Action may affect monarch butterflies and/or suitable monarch habitat; however, ground and vegetation disturbing activities are not expected to appreciably diminish the quality or extent of available suitable habitat in the vicinity of the study area. In addition, proposed Page 151 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 53 native seed mix establishment will provide additional suitable habitat and benefit the species. The study area has been disturbed for agricultural use and contains natural prairie vegetation around the southern wetland, which will be avoided. Whooping Crane The Proposed Action would be completed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. The Proposed Action is not expected to diminish the quality or extent of whooping crane suitable habitat within the study area vicinity. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to jeopardize the continued existence of the whooping crane. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee The Proposed Action may affect rusty patched bumble bees and/or suitable habitat. Impacts to unmanicured and wooded areas should be minimized or avoided if possible. Invasive Species Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment, and other debris. Stormwater Stormwater run-off can cause a number of environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a construction site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands which in turn may harm wildlife. Tree Removal The AUAR study area contains approximately 3.4 acres of woodland area, and 150 acres of golf course with a high density of trees. Forests and forested areas provide an important natural resource in Minnesota. Forest clearing and tree removal creates a variety of environmental impacts including habitat destruction, biodiversity impairment, soil erosion, and loss of carbon sinks. Although some tree removal will be necessary, the scope of removal will be limited as much as feasible to support the proposed development. Tree removal will adhere to the City's tree preservation requirements. The City of Farmington regulates tree preservation and requires builders to submit a tree preservation plan prior to construction. City staff review these plans and attempt to identify and save as many significant trees as feasible17. The developer will coordinate with USFWS to determine tree removal commitments with regard to the NLEB the rusty patched bumble bee. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources. State-listed Species Loggerhead Shrike 17 Source: Farmington, Minn., City Code 10-6-11 Page 152 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 54 To avoid potential impacts to loggerhead shrikes, tree and shrub removal activities are anticipated to avoided during the breeding season for the loggerhead shrike, April 1-July 31. Any loggerhead shrike sightings will be reported to the DNR. Federally-listed Species Northern Long-eared Bat Tree clearing activities should be restricted to when Northern long-eared bats are not likely to be present, between November 1 to March 31. Coordination with USFWS before tree clearing is recommended. Tricolored Bat To prevent impacts to bat species, tree trimming or removal should occur during the winter months (November 1 – March 31). Monarch Butterfly The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area. Whooping Crane No mitigation measures are anticipated to be required. Rusty Patched Bumble Bee The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area. Further coordination with USFWS is recommended. Invasive Species State requirements necessitate the control and spread of state listed noxious weeds and/or invasive weeds if encountered prior to construction. Disturbed areas would be reestablished using appropriate native and stabilization seed mixes. Methods to avoid spreading noxious weeds and/or invasive species will be incorporated into project specifications (and/or SWPPP when developed). According to the DNR, some methods that can prevent the spread of invasive species during construction include: ● Inspecting construction equipment and removing any visible plant, seeds, mud, dirt clods, and animals when arriving and leaving a site. ● Using certified weed-free products such as weed-free seed or hay whenever possible. ● Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of invasive species whenever possible. ● Inspecting soil and plant material during planting for signs of invasive species and removing or destroying the invasive species or the plant and associated soil if the invasive species cannot be separated out. Page 153 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 55 Tree Removal Although tree removal will be required for development, some existing trees may be preserved in areas around the perimeter of the property. Scenario 1 will preserve a forty (40) foot natural buffer around the perimeter of the facility. Prior to construction, a tree preservation plan will be submitted and reviewed by city staff. Tree replacement will be conducted as required by the city. Stormwater Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 include stormwater management and treatment of all stormwater run-off within the AUAR study area. 15. HISTORIC PROPERTIES Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office and State Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified. The Minnesota Statewide Historic Inventory Portal (MnSHIP) was reviewed to identify historic resources. According to MnSHIP, there are no historic resources within the study area. According to the Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) Public Viewer map, there are no known archeological records in the vicinity of the site. Based on the results of the database review and absent a federal nexus, a Phase I Archaeological Assessment is not required for the project. If a federal nexus is identified during preparation of project permits (if a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit is required due to impacts to regulated wetlands), a Phase I Archaeological Assessment may be necessary. 16. VISUAL Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects. AUAR Guidance: Any impacts on scenic views and vistas present in the AUAR should be addressed. This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. EAW Guidelines contains a list of possible scenic resources. Page 154 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 56 If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation. The AUAR study area includes existing agricultural land that is not near any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Any development of agricultural land will have an impact on the visual look of a property. Future development would conform with the city ordinances for building height, building form, landscape screening, and lighting to avoid impacts to neighboring properties and species. No significant visual impacts are anticipated. As building and site designs advance, lighting practices will be selected to address known ecological concerns and prevent avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare plants, and adjacent natural areas. Guidance from the USFWS to minimize blue light, uplight, and backlight will be adhered to the extent practicable. 17. AIR a. Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions. AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review. Not applicable to an AUAR. b. Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g., traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions. AUAR Guidance: Although the MPCA no longer issues Indirect Source Permits, traffic-related air quality may still be an issue if the analysis in Item 18 indicates that development would cause or worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance from the EAW form should still be followed. Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to MPCA staff. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method designed to identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide (CO) impact above state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards. MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution Page 155 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 57 problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a violation of the air quality standards. c. Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors. AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust control ordinances in effect. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. The City of Farmington regulates dust in accordance with the standards set by the MPCA.18 Dust emissions can be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during operations as all ground surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated. 18. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS/CARBON FOOTPRINT a. GHG Quantification – For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of project GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project- specific emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation methods are not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the process used to come to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the total calculation. About Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that 18 Source: Farmington, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances § 10-6-27 (A) Page 156 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 58 contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.19 Project-related GHG Emissions This section describes the GHG emissions from the existing buildings within the study area and includes an estimated quantification of the following GHG emissions associated with the proposed scenarios. ● Carbon dioxide (CO2) ● Nitrous oxide (N2O) ● Methane (CH4) The projected GHG emissions are provided on an average annual basis using the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and include the proposer’s best estimate of average annual emissions over the proposed life/design service life of future development. The estimates also include emissions from the construction and operating phases of the scenario. Emissions were estimated using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC) (Version 7 June 2021)20 and are summarized in Table 18 and Table 19 by project phase (i.e., construction and operations) and source type (e.g., combustion from mobile equipment, off-site electricity). Construction emissions for the two proposed scenarios are based on length of construction and are from mobile equipment including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium and heavy- duty trucks, and construction equipment (both gasoline and diesel). 19 Summarized from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases 20 Source: https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/simplified-ghg-emissions-calculator Page 157 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 59 Table 18: Construction Emissions Scope Emission Type Emission Sub-Type Emitant Existing CO2e Emissions (total) Scenario 1 Project- Related CO2e Emissions (total) Scenario 2 Project- Related CO2e Emissions (total) Scope 1 Combustion Mobile equipment CO2, N2O, CH4 n/a 22,408 13,551 Total n/a 22,408 13,551 Table 19: Annual Operational Emissions Scope Emission Type Emission Sub- Type Emitant Existing CO2e Emissions (tons/year) Scenario 1 Proposed CO2e Emissions (tons/year) Scenario 2 Proposed CO2e Emissions (tons/year) Scope 1 Combustion Stationary equipment CO2, N2O, CH4 53 18 2,287 Scope 2 Off-site electricity Grid-based CO2, N2O, CH4 131 25,649 3,835 Scope 3 Off-site waste management Area CO2, CH4 21 1,275 789 Total 205 26,943 6,911 b. GHG Assessment i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Unless otherwise noted differently, the following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that are under consideration for the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 to reduce emissions for both scenarios: ● Use energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting ● Energy efficient building shells ● Implement waste best management practices and recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable ● Trees and additional landscaping will be planted as part of the new development ● Provide electric vehicle-ready charging infrastructure ● Purchase grid-based wind and solar power (for Scenario 1) Page 158 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 60 Implementation of the above strategies will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on code requirements, feasibility, availability of materials, schedule, and tenant considerations. The project proposer will work with the City to identify additional mitigation strategies that could be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or offset the carbon footprint of the proposed project. ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred. ● Both scenarios would require new appliances, equipment, and lighting during operation. The use of energy efficient technologies would reduce the amount of electricity used per product. Collectively, the implementation of these technologies would reduce overall energy use and in-turn, GHG emissions. ● Both scenarios would require heating and cooling during operation. One of the highest sources of energy use is energy spent heating and cooling buildings. The use of energy efficient building shells reduces the amount of energy needed for heating and cooling, therefore reducing energy use and GHG emissions. ● Waste would be generated during operation of both scenarios. By implementing waste best management practices and recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable, GHG emitted from wastes during operations can be reduced. ● Trees and additional landscaping can reduce the GHG footprint of the project by absorbing greenhouse gas emissions. For both scenarios, tree replacement will occur per city requirements. The potential mitigation listed in Item 18.b.i. was selected to comply with best management practices for new construction and reduce GHG emissions where practicable during operations. iii. Quantify the proposed project’s predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons per number of years) and how those predicted emissions may affect achievement of the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act goals and/or other more stringent state or local GHG reduction goals. The Next Generation Energy Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 80 percent between 2005 and 2050, while supporting clean energy, energy efficiency, and supplementing other renewable energy standards in Minnesota. The MPCA’s biennial GHG emissions reduction report from 2021 identifies strategies for reducing emissions in the three economic sectors with the highest emissions – transportation, electricity generation, and agriculture, forestry, and land use. The current AUAR study area currently generates 205 CO2e metric tons per year, which equates to 0.14% of total annual city-wide emissions. Under Scenario 1, this amount will increase to 26,943 CO2e metric tons per year, for a 18.6% increase in annual city-wide Page 159 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 61 emissions. Under Scenario 2, this amount will increase to 6,911 CO2e metric tons per year, for a 4.8% increase in annual city-wide emissions. The expected lifespan of the project is 50 years, this equates to a total estimated 1,369,535 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development under Scenario 1 and 359,177 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development under Scenario 2 (including both construction and operations phases). The proposer will evaluate implementing the sustainability measures listed in Item 18.b.i to reduce operational emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed project will be built in compliance with state regulations and city building codes. 19. NOISE Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3) conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise. AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any construction noise ordinances in effect. If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic analysis of Item 18. Existing Noise The AUAR study area is currently agricultural land and existing golf course. The existing noise sources at the site consist mainly of the surrounding roadways. Construction Noise As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified that would necessitate a detailed construction noise analysis. Construction of the proposed project would comply with MPCA noise standards. Traffic Generated Noise A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be heard as twice as loud. Page 160 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 62 Traffic volumes in the project area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are sensitive to noise, or the traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable. The change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible. Operational Noise For Scenario 1, the main sources of noise include computers and ventilation systems within the building, and the use of generators tested once a month and in the case of emergency. Sensitive receptors within the project site vicinity include adjacent residential houses, parks, and businesses. Further noise evaluation will be completed as design progresses and best practices to reduce noise spill will be implemented for the technology park uses to ensure compliance with local and state noise regulations. Noise attenuation measures will be incorporated into project design to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City noise ordinances are followed. 20. TRANSPORTATION a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. Parking Minimum off-street parking requirements listed in Section 10-6-4 of the City of Farmington’s Code of Ordinances or other metric acceptable to the City and agreed upon through the rezoning process will be adhered to. Existing Conditions The existing roadway network within the study area includes MN 3 (Chippendale Avenue) / MN 50 (220th Street), MN 3 (Chippendale Avenue) / 225th Street, and MN 3 (Chippendale Avenue) / County Highway 50 (Elm Street). The roadway network is described below: ● MN 3 (Chippendale Avenue) is a north-south State Highway which is a two-lane undivided roadway south of MN 50 and a four-lane divided roadway at the intersection and to the north. The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan envisions MN 3 as a future Principal Arterial. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 7,400 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2022 north of MN 50 and 7,200 vpd in 2022 south of MN 50. The posted speed limit is 45 mph and changes to 55 mph south of 225th Street. ● MN 50 (220th Street) is an east-west two-lane undivided roadway with a three-lane section west of MN 3. The roadway is a State Highway (MN 50) east of the MN 3 intersection and is under MnDOT jurisdiction there. West of MN 3, the road is under Dakota County jurisdiction and is a County State Aid Highway (CSAH 74). The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan envisions 220th Street as a future Principal Arterial, with a planned connection of CSAH 74 to 215th Street W in Lakeville. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of Page 161 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 63 6,200 vpd in 2022 east of MN 3 and 4,700 vpd in 2022 west of MN 3. The posted speed limit on 220th Street is 30 mph west of MN 3, 35 mph between MN 3 and 10th Street and 55 east of 10th Street. ● 225th Street is an east-west two-lane undivided roadway with one travel lane in each direction and no turn lanes provided. The roadway is unpaved east of Cambrian Way. 225th Street is a local road, and the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application has no traffic data for the roadway. The posted speed limit on 225th Street is 40 mph. ● County State Aid Highway 50 (Elm Street) is an east-west three-lane undivided roadway west of MN 3 with one travel lanes in each direction a shared left turn lane in the center, east of MN3 Elm Street is a two-lane roadway. The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan envisions the roadway as a future Other Arterial. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the roadway has an AADT of 12,400 west of 7th Street, as of 2022. The posted speed limit on CSAH 50 is 30 mph. The 2023 AADT shows 10,590 west of MN 3 for this section. ● Biscayne Avenue is an unpaved local roadway which makes up the eastern boundary of the site. There is no posted speed limit. Traffic Generation The trip generation of the two previously shown development scenarios were estimated based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Scenario 1 utilized the Land Use Code (LUC) for Data Center (LUC 160) as the best available representation of the number of trips generated by a Technology Park, while Scenario 2 utilized the codes for Single Family Detached Housing (LUC 210) and Shopping Plaza (LUC 821). The trip generation is shown in Table 20. The full traffic study conducted for the AUAR can be found in Appendix B. Table 20: Trip Generation Forecasts Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Total In Out Total In Out Scenario 1 277 152 125 227 68 159 2,498 Scenario 2 645 225 420 1,154 654 500 13,116 Availability of Transit There are no transit services available near the project vicinity. b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance. Page 162 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 64 AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews, a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response to Items 16 and 17. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in June 2024 based on the projected trip generation of the proposed scenarios. The results of this study can be found in Appendix B. Based on the detailed findings of the Farmington Technology Park TIA, the area’s transportation network is expected to support redevelopment within the AUAR study area with mitigation. The TIA identified improvements that could be constructed to mitigate possible future traffic impacts associated with development within the AUAR study area. Metrics for traffic analysis include intersection delay as measured by Level of Service (LOS) and queue lengths. The traffic analysis report includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections at the site access points as well as intersection operations within the vicinity of the project (see locations identified on Exhibit 1 of the TIA). The accesses along MN 50, and 225th Street meet the access spacing requirement in the Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan. Based on the results of the TIA capacity analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate acceptably in both scenarios, with minimal increases in delay due to the addition of site traffic and background growth. Some minor queueing issues are anticipated under Scenario 2 conditions which will require mitigation. The following turn lanes were determined to be at or over capacity under future Scenario 2 conditions: ● Northbound left and southbound right at MN 3 & CSAH 50 ● Southbound left at MN 3 & MN 50 Projected traffic volumes at key turning movements for the project were analyzed via MnDOT’s guidelines for installation of left and right turn bays. The findings indicated that the following turn lane improvements are recommended based on the MnDOT Guidelines: ● Westbound left at the primary access point along MN 50 ● Northbound right and southbound left at the intersection of MN 3 & 225th Street Analysis was conducted for the anticipated opening year of the development (2029) and a long-term design year (2040) to align with the Farmington and Dakota County 2040 forecasting. Table 21 shows the LOS for the study area intersections in each analysis scenario and study year. Note that LOS at side-street stop-controlled intersections is defined as the LOS of the worst side-street movement. Table 21: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS Intersection Existing LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 2 LOS 2024 2029 2040 2029 2040 2029 2040 AM Peak Hour MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) B B B B B B B Page 163 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 65 Intersection Existing LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 2 LOS 2024 2029 2040 2029 2040 2029 2040 MN 3 & 225th Street A A A A A A A MN 3 & CSAH 50 (Elm Street) B B B B B B B MN 50 & North Access - - - A A B B 225th Street & South Access - - - A A A A PM Peak Hour MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) B B B B B B C MN 3 & 225th Street B A A B B B C MN 3 & CSAH 50 (Elm Street) B B B B B C C MN 50 & North Access - - - A A D D 225th Street & South Access - - - A A A A c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic analysis for the Farmington Technology Park property. Existing (2024) No-Build Conditions ● No Mitigation Necessary Short-Term (2029) No-Build Conditions ● No Mitigation Necessary Short-Term (2029) Scenario 1 Conditions ● Install northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at MN 3 & 225th Street. ● Install a westbound left turn lane at the site access along MN 50. Short-Term (2029) Scenario 2 Conditions ● Install northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at MN 3 & 225th Street. ● Install a westbound left turn lane at the site access along MN 50. ● Extend southbound left turn lane at MN 3 & MN 50 to a length of at least 350’. Page 164 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 66 Long-Term (2040) No-Build Conditions ● No Mitigation Necessary Long-Term (2040) Scenario 1 Conditions ● Same improvements as the short-term Scenario 1 ● Install northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at MN 3 & 225th Street. ● Install a westbound left turn lane at the site access along MN 50. Long-Term (2040) Scenario 2 Conditions ● Install northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at MN 3 & 225th Street. ● Install a westbound left turn lane at the site access along MN 50. ● Extend southbound left turn lane at MN 3 & MN 50 to a length of at least 350’. ● Extend the southbound right turn lane at MN 3 & CSAH 50 to at least 200’. ● Extend the northbound left turn lane at MN 3 & CSAH 50 to at least 400’. 21. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the AUAR area. However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item. a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects. Cumulative effects are defined as the “effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the projects.”21 The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to the AUAR study area, and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future. b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above. 21 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a Page 165 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 67 There are four reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the environmental effects of the proposed project: ● Vita Attiva: A roadway extension will be construction from the west end of the development to County Highway 50. Construction will likely start in 2024 or 2025. ● An anticipated construction of a 168-unit apartment complex at the northwest corner of Dushane Parkway/Spruce Street. Construction anticipated to begin in 2024. ● R&L Carriers: Anticipated expansion of their facility southeast of Pilot Knob Road/208th Street. ● The site on the south side of Knutsen Drive is considering development. ● Farmington West Industrial: Development in the northwest quadrant of Highway 50 and Pilot Knob Road. Future private development projects may result in impacts to transportation, water resources, and utilities. These impacts will be addressed via the regulatory permitting and approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects. Not applicable. 22. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AUAR Guidance: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. There are no other potential environmental effects that have not been addressed in preceding sections. FINAL MITIGATION PLAN This Final Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an understanding of the actions that are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. This Mitigation Plan will be revised and updated based on comments received during the AUAR comment period. This Final Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a mitigation plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. Although mitigation strategies are discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts. Page 166 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 68 The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances, rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies’ responsibilities for implementing their respective regulatory programs nor create additional regulatory requirements. The plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. In addition to the anticipated permits and approvals listed in, the mitigation measures developed in the AUAR process are outlined in Table 22. There were no impacts or mitigation strategies identified in Item 15 therefore, this area is not included in the Final Mitigation Plan. The remaining AUAR items have identified regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of potential impact of development within the study area. The plan is formatted consistent with the sections of the AUAR for ease of reference. Table 22: Final Mitigation Plan Resource Area Mitigation Land Use Scenario 1 and 2: Any zoning inconsistencies (one parcel zoned as A-1, Agriculture) will be addressed through a re-zoning. Scenario 1 and 2: the City will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council to increase the TAZ allocations, if needed. Geology, Soils, and Topography Scenario 1 and 2: Erosion prevention and sediment control practices will be implemented on-site per the NPDES General Stormwater Permit requirements. Scenario 1 and 2: Site specific subsurface investigations should be completed prior to work commencement. If karst conditions are found to be present, follow the VRWJPO, City of Farmington, and the MPCA design guidelines. Water Resources Scenarios 1 and 2: Infrastructure will be built within the AUAR study area to convey stormwater to stormwater management areas to help achieve the appropriate water quality treatment. As required by the City, the quantity and rate of stormwater runoff from the 1-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events in post-development conditions will be managed to not exceed the existing conditions. Scenarios 1 and 2: Maintenance and monitoring of the stormwater management areas will be performed to ensure long term effectiveness of the facilities. Scenarios 1 and 2: Obtain a permit from the Metropolitan Council and MPCA for a sewer extension and permit to connect. Scenarios 1 and 2: Obtain a permit from MDH for a watermain installation Scenarios 1 and 2: Groundwater wells will be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to redevelopment within the AUAR study area per MPCA and MDH well sealing requirements. If any unverified wells are identified during construction, they will be examined by a licensed well contractor or a Dakota County well inspector to determine the status. Scenarios 1 and 2: A chloride management plan will be implemented, which will meet state and local requirements. Scenarios 1 and 2: Best management practices pertaining to stormwater management will be adhered to during construction. Page 167 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 69 Resource Area Mitigation Scenarios 1 and 2: Avoidance measures will be taken to avoid impacts to the wetlands within the AUAR study area. If proposed design plans change and impacts to wetlands are necessary, the project proposer will purchase wetland banking credits from the wetland bank within the Vermillion River Watershed, if available. Buffers will be installed around wetlands to protect water quality from adjacent development. Scenario 1: Future development may use effluent water from the MCES Empire treatment facility for non-contact cooling. Scenarios 1 and 2: The existing water infrastructure is planned to be extended and upsized to ensure adequate capacity for all future planned growth in this area of the City, including the subject development site. The City may need a water storage tank of up to 2.5 million gallons in the project vicinity to accommodate future growth in this section of the City. The City will review the current water appropriations and well capacity to determine if any new wells or an amendment to their current water appropriations permit is needed. Coordination with the DNR will be needed if an amendment to the water appropriations permit or a new well is needed is this part of the City. Scenario 1: If needed to offset the peak daily flows to the MCES system, a flow equalization system or some other method of disposal of the cooling water may be implemented to maintain the anticipated flows. If needed, the proposed project may require a permit from MPCA for a cooling water discharge, a flow equalization tank, or other reuse options of the cooling water will be evaluated. Further coordination with MCES and MPCA is needed depending on the anticipated wastewater discharge for the future development. Contamination/ Hazardous Waste Scenarios 1 and 2: Development would both generate construction-related waste materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities; Products will be kept in their original containers unless they cannot be resealed. Original labels and Material Safety Data Sheets will be made available. Surplus materials will be properly removed from the property upon completion of use. Scenarios 1 and 2: Ensure compliance with applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota Statutes 2020, section 473.811, subdivision 5c. Scenarios 1 and 2: Coordinate with the MPCA regarding the required plans, material handling, and disposal. Scenario 1 and 2: Wildlife friendly erosion control methods will be utilized within the study area to minimize impacts to wildlife using the site during construction. Page 168 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 70 Resource Area Mitigation Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources Scenario 1 and 2: Invasive species will be controlled during site construction. Additionally, appropriate measures will be taken to control the spread of invasive species will be controlled during construction and landscaping: ● Inspecting construction equipment and removing any visible plant, seeds, mud, dirt clods, and animals when arriving and leaving a site. ● Using certified weed-free products such as weed-free seed or hay whenever possible. ● Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of invasive species whenever possible. ● Inspecting soil and plant material during planting for signs of invasive species and removing or destroying the invasive species or the plant and associated soil if the invasive species cannot be separated out. ● Native and drought-tolerant species will be utilized in landscaped areas. Scenario 1 and 2: Tree and shrub clearing activities will be restricted to winter months when NLEB and migratory birds are not likely to be present (November 1 - March 31). If winter tree clearing is not feasible, technical assistance from the USFWS and Minnesota DNR is required. A specific tree replacement plan will be created and approved by the City prior to development. Visual Scenario 1 and 2: Lighting practices will be selected to address known ecological concerns and prevent avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare plants, and adjacent natural areas. Guidance from the USFWS that recommends a lighting system that minimizes uplight and backlight would be adhered to the extent practicable. Air Scenario 1 and 2: Construction will generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during construction. These emissions will be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. The City of Farmington regulates dust in accordance with the standards set by the MPCA. GHG Emissions/Carbon Footprint Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: Unless otherwise noted differently, the following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that are under consideration for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 to reduce emissions for both scenarios: ● Use energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting ● Energy efficient building shells ● Implement waste best management practices and recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable ● Trees and additional landscaping will be planted as part of the new development Noise Scenario 1 and 2: Construction activities may result in temporarily elevated noise levels. To the extent possible, construction activities will be conducted to minimize noise levels and nighttime construction activities. Permits related to construction noise must be obtained from the City at least 7 working days prior to the start of construction. Scenario 1: Further noise evaluation will be completed as design progresses and best practices to reduce noise will be implemented. Scenario 1 and 2: Noise attenuation measures will be incorporated into project design to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City noise ordinances are followed. Page 169 of 503 Farmington Technology Park AUAR October 2024 71 Resource Area Mitigation Transportation Short-Term (2029) Scenario 1 Conditions ● Install northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at MN 3 & 225th Street. ● Install a westbound left turn lane at the site access along MN 50. Short-Term (2029) Scenario 2 Conditions ● Install northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at MN 3 & 225th Street. ● Install a westbound left turn lane at the site access along MN 50. ● Extend southbound left turn lane at MN 3 & MN 50 to a length of at least 350’. Long-Term (2040) Scenario 1 Conditions ● Install northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at MN 3 & 225th Street. ● Install a westbound left turn lane at the site access along MN 50. Long-Term (2040) Scenario 2 Conditions ● Install northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at MN 3 & 225th Street. ● Install a westbound left turn lane at the site access along MN 50. ● Extend southbound left turn lane at MN 3 & MN 50 to a length of at least 350’. ● Extend the southbound right turn lane at MN 3 & CSAH 50 to at least 200’. ● Extend the northbound left turn lane at MN 3 & CSAH 50 to at least 400’. Page 170 of 503 Appendix A Wetland Delineation Report Page 171 of 503 Wetland Delineation Report Farmington Technology Park City of Farmington Dakota County, Minnesota Prepared for: Tract Management Company, LP 3300 E. 1st Ave, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80206 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100 Saint Paul, MN 55114 July 2024 DRAFT Page 172 of 503 July 2024 | i Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iiii 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 1 3 Statement of Qualifications ................................................................................................................ 1 4 Regulatory Requirements .................................................................................................................. 2 5 Mapping and Background Information ............................................................................................... 3 5.1 Topographic Map ..................................................................................................................... 3 5.2 National Wetlands Inventory ..................................................................................................... 3 5.3 National Hydrography Dataset .................................................................................................. 3 5.4 DNR Public Waters Inventory ................................................................................................... 3 5.5 Soil Survey ............................................................................................................................... 3 5.6 Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain ............................................................... 4 5.7 Precipitation ............................................................................................................................. 4 5.8 Aerial Photography Review ...................................................................................................... 4 6 Field Investigation ............................................................................................................................. 4 7 Summary of Results .......................................................................................................................... 6 8 Report Preparation .......................................................................................................................... 10 9 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 10 10 Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................... 10 References ............................................................................................................................................ 11 List of Tables Table 1: Delineation Summary ................................................................................................................. 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map Figure 3. NWI – NHD – 2-ft Contours Map Figure 4. Hydric Soils Map Figure 5. FEMA Floodplain Map Tract Management Company, LP Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report Page 173 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | ii Tract Management Company, LP Figure 6. Delineation Summary Map Appendices Appendix A: Hydric Soils Information Appendix B: Historic Aerial Review Appendix C: Precipitation Data Appendix D: Field Data Sheets Appendix E: Photos Page 174 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | iii Tract Management Company, LP Executive Summary Wetland scientists Cassie Baumgartner (CMWP #1447), Mason Kunkel, and Max Forsman, with Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. conducted a wetland investigation and field delineation for Tract Management Company, LP and the Farmington Technology Park Project in the city of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota. The wetland investigation and delineation included Parcel ID 140050001012, 070050076011, and 070050076012 (the “study area”). A routine level 2 (onsite) wetland delineation, as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (January 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) (August 2010) occurred on May 30 and June 13, 2024. In total, 10 wetlands and 1 perennial stream were delineated and are described in Table 1. Page 175 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 1 Tract Management Company, LP 1 Introduction Wetland scientists Cassie Baumgartner (CMW P # 1447), Mason Kunkel, and Max Forsman, with Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. conducted a wetland investigation and field delineation for Tract Management Company, LP and the Farmington Technology Park project in the city of Farmington, Dakota County, Minnesota. The wetland investigation and delineation included Parcel ID 140050001012, 070050076011, and 070050076012 (the “study area”). The study area is shown in Figure 1. The study area consists of the Fountain Valley Golf Course north of 225th Street West. The study area to the south consists of active cropland, the South Branch Vermillion River, roadway, and a farmstead. Cover types within the study area include cultivated crops, developed (medium intensity), developed (open space), and pasture/hay. A routine level 2 (onsite) wetland delineation, as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (January 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) (August 2010) occurred on May 30 and June 13, 2024. The purpose of this delineation was to identify the extent of wetlands within the study area. The information will be used to facilitate project design and determine if aquatic resource impacts are avoidable and/or if minimization of impacts can result from design modifications. 2 Project Description Tract Management Company, LP is proposing to develop the parcel into a series of buildings, security fencing, and associated utilities and roadways. 3 Statement of Qualifications Kimley-Horn has extensive experience completing wetland investigations and delineations across the United States. Kimley-Horn’s personnel has been trained to use the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) along with the applicable regional supplements. Kimley-Horn has experience completing off-site hydrology analysis, historic aerial reviews, and difficult or atypical situation delineations. Ashley Payne earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Environmental Biology from Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. She is an environmental scientist with 16 years of experience specializing in wetland services environmental documentation and assessments, and geographic information systems mapping and data collection. During the last 16 years, she has successfully completed hundreds of delineations for various types of projects. In the last seven years, Ashley’s primary focus has been the delineation of agricultural fields for future development. She is familiar with completing historic aerial reviews and off-site hydrology determinations which are required for delineation of farmed wetlands. Ashley has also obtained environmental permits for clients through efficient and thorough preparation of permit applications, and by coordinating with agency personnel. Ashley is a certified delineator in the state of Minnesota and her primary focus is environmental work in the Midwest. She has extensive experience working in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and South Dakota. Cassie Baumgartner earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, from the University of Minnesota. Cassie has experience in Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, natural resource surveying and permitting, threatened and endangered species due diligence, NPDES stormwater compliance, and specializes in wetland delineations and geographic information systems mapping. She has completed wetland delineations for both public and private sector clients throughout the Midwest and is proficient in wetland delineations in agricultural areas. Page 176 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 2 Tract Management Company, LP Mason Kunkel earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology with an emphasis in Wildlife Conservation from Western Colorado University. He is a biologist who specializes in wetland delineation and geographic information systems mapping. He has assisted with the delineation of agricultural fields, roadway corridors, and undeveloped areas for future development and transit projects. He is proficient using ArcGIS to produce client specific exhibits for various project types. He is familiar with completing historic aerial reviews and off-site hydrology determinations which are required for delineation of farmed wetlands. He has extensive experience working in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan. Max Forsman holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology (Ecology, Evolution, Behavior) and Environmental Science from the University of Minnesota Duluth. Max is proficient in environmental permitting, wetland delineations, botany, and Geographic Information Systems mapping. He has completed delineations throughout the Midwest in peatlands, developed areas, roadway corridors, pipeline corridors, and agricultural fields. Max has experience in a variety of natural resource survey methodologies and habitat conservation planning. Max has completed wetland delineations for both public and private sector clients in Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 4 Regulatory Requirements A summary of the permit requirements that may pertain to the project is provided below. Any activity planned within areas identified as wetland must be coordinated with and approved by the appropriate agencies prior to commencement of such activities. Agencies in Minnesota that regulate activities that affect lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands include: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Local Governmental Units (LGUs) Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) The LGU for this project is the Dakota County SWCD. The WCA applies to nearly all wetlands not regulated by the DNR. The regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) covers Waters of the United States (WOTUS) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Generally, the USACE reviews delineations to determine whether wetlands are jurisdictional (i.e., WOTUS). On December 30, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army (“the agencies”) announced the final “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” rule. The rule took effect on March 20, 2023. Based on a preliminary federal injunction on April 12, 2023, the Revised Definition was revoked and the pre-2015 regulatory regime is in effect for 27 states. In Minnesota, the 2023 Revised Definition of the Waters of the United States is in effect as of the date of this report. As of September 8, 2023, the EPA and the Department of the Army amended the WOTUS rule to conform to the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA. Based on the May 25, 2023 ruling of Sackett v. EPA (2023), the Clean Waters Act’s use of “waters” encompasses only relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies, ordinarily called streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes. Wetlands qualify as WOTUS only if “indistinguishable from waters of the United States,” having a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own right, with no clear division between waters and wetlands. In Minnesota, a joint application process has been developed for projects with anticipated wetland impacts. Applications are coordinated between the USACE, DNR, and LGU. Page 177 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 3 Tract Management Company, LP 5 Mapping and Background Information Prior to field reconnaissance, potential wetland areas within the project study areas were identified through a desktop review of United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters Inventory (PWI), LiDAR, the soil survey for Dakota County, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), aerial photography, and antecedent precipitation for a location near the study area. The selected resources are described below: 5.1 Topographic Map The Farmington, Castle Rock, Randolph, and Coates 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and LiDAR data from USGS were reviewed for the study area. According to the USGS topographic map (see Figure 2), the study area is depicted as a Golf Course to the north of 225th. The southern portion is depicted as largely undeveloped land which is transected by a portion of the South Branch Vermillion River with two associated intermittent stream branches. Several buildings are depicted in the central portion of the study area. The LiDAR map depicts the north portion of the study area generally sloping to the northwest. The southern portion of the study area slopes south to the South Branch Vermillion River site sloping south towards the South Branch Vermillion River, and northeast towards the forested marsh. The site ranges from 892 feet (above mean sea level) to 930 feet, see Appendix A. 5.2 National Wetlands Inventory NWI mapping, available from the Minnesota DNR (updated in 2022), depicts potential wetland areas and waterbodies based on stereoscopic analysis of high altitude and aerial photographs and was reviewed for the study area. According to the NWI map, there are portions of 20 wetland types or features within the study area, see Figure 3. Wetland types included 10 seasonally flooded basins/floodplains (PEM1A, PEM1Ad, PEM1Af, PEM1C, PEM1Cd), three freshwater ponds (PABH, PABHx), two scrub-shrub communities (PSS1A), three intermittent streams (R4SBC), one perennial stream (R2UBFx), and one wooded swamp (PFO1A). 5.3 National Hydrography Dataset The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), available from USGS, depicts drainage networks and related features, including rivers, streams, canals, lakes, and ponds. The NHD dataset is not field verified. According to NHD mapping, there are portions of three flowline features within the southern portion of the study area. One flowline is identified as South Branch Vermillion River. Two additional NHD features converge with the South Branch Vermillion River, see Figure 3. 5.4 DNR Public Waters Inventory The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters Inventory (PWI) depicts DNR Public Waterways and Waterbodies. According to the PWI inventory, there are no Public Waters within the study area; however, the portion of South Branch Vermillion River to the east of the study area is identified as a Public Waterway, see Figure 3. 5.5 Soil Survey The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for Dakota County was reviewed for the study area. According to the survey, there are 17 soil mapping units within the study area which are generally loams and silty clay loams, with some silt loams, sandy loams, gravelly sandy loam, and muck. Approximately 42 percent of the study area was mapped with soils with a non-hydric soil rating of 0 percent. Page 178 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 4 Tract Management Company, LP Approximately 40 percent of the study area was mapped with soils with a predominantly hydric or hydric rating between 90-100 percent. The remaining portions of the study area were mapped with predominantly non-hydric soils between 1-15 percent. Maps and information obtained from the NRCS online web soil survey are included in Appendix A. 5.6 Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was reviewed for the project study area. According to the FEMA FIRM, portions of the southern half of the study area are located in Zone AE of panels 27037C0360E and 27037C0380E (effective December 2, 2011), which is within the designated 100-year floodplain zone. The remainder of the study area is located in Zone X of panels 27037C0219E and 27037C0238E (effective December 2, 2011) which is outside the designated 100-year floodplain zone, see Figure 5. 5.7 Precipitation Minnesota State Climatology Office data were reviewed for climate stations within the vicinity of the study area to determine the current hydrologic conditions for the site and if those conditions are typical for this time of year. Ninety-day rolling precipitation levels leading up to the field review were compared to historical data. The data show that February had drier than normal, March had wetter than normal, April had normal, and May had wetter than normal precipitation levels. In summary, the field visit constituted wetter than normal precipitation conditions. This information is included in Appendix C. 5.8 Aerial Photography Review Aerial photography, acquired from Google Earth, was reviewed to identify the potential for wetlands across the site. Eleven photos were reviewed between 1991 and 2024, available in Appendix B. These photos were used to determine the presence of wetland hydrology using industry accepted offsite hydrology analysis for areas showing crop stress or other potential wetland signatures. Each image was interpreted for the presence or lack of hydrologic indicators. Two Areas of Investigation (AOIs) were identified in the study area. AOIs 1 and 2 had wetland signatures in at least 30% of the historic aerials with normal precipitation conditions, met primary hydrology indicators during the field delineation, and was delineated as part of Wetland 1. The AOIs are shown in Appendix B. 6 Field Investigation A routine level 2 (onsite) wetland delineation, as outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (January 1987) along with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) (August 2010) occurred on May 30 and June 13, 2024. During the onsite delineation, vegetation, soils, and current hydrologic characteristics were evaluated at each wetland area and area of investigation identified within the study area. Wetland boundaries were flagged with wetland flags until one or more of the three criteria were no longer present. The sample point locations, wetland boundaries, and aquatic features were surveyed with a Juniper Geode GPS and are shown in Figure 6. In addition to wetlands that were investigated and delineated, non-wetland aquatic features were sought but none were delineated. Non-wetland aquatic features are defined based on the observation of the following characteristics: • Flow o Perennial: contains water at all times of the year except during extreme drought Page 179 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 5 Tract Management Company, LP o Intermittent: contains water occasionally or seasonally o Ephemeral: contains water only during and immediately after periods of rainfall or snowmelt • Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM): The limit line on the shore established by the fluctuation of the water surface. It is shown by such things as a clear line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in soil character, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other features influenced by the surrounding area • Bank Shape o Undercut: banks that overhang the stream channel o Steep: bank slope of approximately greater than 30 degrees o Gradual: bank slope of approximately 30 degrees or less Sample points were completed for all observed wetlands. Historic aerials were reviewed for sample points taken in agricultural fields, see Appendix B. The field data sheets are included in Appendix D. Site photos and a photo locations map can be found in Appendix E. Page 180 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 6 Tract Management Company, LP 7 Summary of Results Table 1: Delineation Summary Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type 1 Cowardin Classification 2 Size (acres/linear feet)3 NWI? Hydric Soils?4 Photo ID Associated Sample Points NOTES Regulatory Status 5 Wetlands Wetland 1 Seasonally Flooded Basin Fesh Wet Meadow Shrub/Carr Shallow Pond Types 1 / 2 / 5 / 6 PEM1Af PEM1B PSS1A PABH 46.28 acres PEM1Af PEM1Ad PEM1Cd PSS1A PSS1/EM1A R2UBFx R4SBC Yes 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 SP-15, 17, 19 (Wet) SP-16, 18 (Up) Wetland complex located in the southern portion of the study area, in the floodplain of the South Branch Vermillion River. The complex consists of an extensive wet meadow floodplain plant community, a small shallow open water pond, a small seasonally flooded basin, and shrub/carr communities. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding area and conveys southeast offsite via South Branch Vermillion River. Jurisdictional (USACE): wetland contributes surface water flow to an offsite Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW) or Relatively Permanent Water (RPW). Wetland 2 Seasonally Flooded Basin Fresh Wet Meadow Types 1 / 2 PFO1A PEM1C 6.09 acres PFO1A PEM1A PEM1C Yes 10, 11, 12, 13 SP-3, 5 (Wet) SP-4, 6 (Up) Wetland complex located in a wooded area in the northeast corner of the study area. The complex consists of a wooded seasonally flooded basin, as well as a fresh wet meadow where the wooded portion transitions into an open Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial connection to a TNW or RPW. 1 The Circular 39 wetland types are found here: https://bwsr.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/2018-12/WETLANDS_delin_Circular_39_MN.pdf 2 The Cowardin Classification System codes are found here: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-Classification-chart.pdf 3 Size of wetland features and additional areas investigated provided in acres and size of non-wetland, linear features provided in linear feet. 4 Areas identified as hydric contain partially hydric soils (equal to or greater than 33% of soil component) mapped within the resource area. 5 Regulatory Status is based on best professional judgment and has not been verified with agency staff. Pa g e 1 8 1 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 7 Tract Management Company, LP Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type 1 Cowardin Classification 2 Size (acres/linear feet)3 NWI? Hydric Soils?4 Photo ID Associated Sample Points NOTES Regulatory Status 5 area. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding area and is surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. Wetland 3 Seasonally Flooded Basin / Shrub Carr Types 1 / 6 PEM1A PSS1A 0.18 acres - Yes 14, 15 SP-1 (Wet) SP-2 (Up) Wetland 3 is a seasonally flooded basin located adjacent to the northern boundary of the study area and south of the golf course driveway turn out. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding area and is surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial connection to a TNW or RPW. Wetland 4 Shallow Marsh Type 3 PEM1C 0.28 acres PABHx Yes 16 SP-14 (Wet) SP-2 (Up) Wetland 4 is a shallow marsh, referred to as the Fountain Valley Golf Course Pond. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding area and is surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. The wetland was documented with representative sample points SP-14 and SP-2. Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial connection to a TNW or RPW. Wetland 5 Shallow Marsh Type 3 PEM1C 0.36 acres PABHx Yes 17 SP-14 (Wet) SP-2 (Up) Wetland 5 is a shallow marsh directly west of Wetland 4. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape. The wetland appears to be surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. The wetland was documented with representative sample points SP-14 and SP-2. Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial connection to a TNW or RPW. Wetland 6 Seasonally Flooded Basin / Fresh Wet Meadow Types 1 / 2 PEM1A 0.08 acres - No 18, 19 SP-7 (Wet) SP-8 (Up) Wetland 6 is a seasonally flooded basin dominated by reed canary grass located in a wooded portion of the Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial Pa g e 1 8 2 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 8 Tract Management Company, LP Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type 1 Cowardin Classification 2 Size (acres/linear feet)3 NWI? Hydric Soils?4 Photo ID Associated Sample Points NOTES Regulatory Status 5 Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding area and is surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. connection to a TNW or RPW. Wetland 7 Seasonally Flooded Basin / Shallow Marsh Types 1 / 3 PEM1A PEM1C 0.09 acres PEM1C Yes 20 SP-14 (Wet) SP-2 (Up) Wetland 7 is an excavated shallow pond dominated by cattail and common reed, located in the northwest portion of the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding area and is surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. The wetland was documented with representative upland point SP-2. Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial connection to a TNW or RPW. Wetland 8 Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 1 PEM1A 0.10 acres - Yes 21, 22 SP-12 (Wet) SP-13 (Up) Wetland 8 is a linear, seasonally flooded basin located between a wooded area and a golfing green in the northwest portion of the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape and is surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial connection to a TNW or RPW. Wetland 9 Fresh Wet Meadow Type 2 PEMB 0.07 acres - Yes 23 SP-9 (Wet) SP-10 (Up) Wetland 9 is a fresh wet meadow bordering a wooded depression in the west portion of the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape and is surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial connection to a TNW or RPW. Pa g e 1 8 3 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 9 Tract Management Company, LP Resource ID Wetland Plant Community C-39 Type 1 Cowardin Classification 2 Size (acres/linear feet)3 NWI? Hydric Soils?4 Photo ID Associated Sample Points NOTES Regulatory Status 5 Wetland 10 Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 1 PEM1A 0.02 acres - Yes 25 SP-11 (Wet) SP-10 (Up) Wetland 10 is a seasonally flooded basin located in a depression in the wooded northwest portion of the Fountain Valley Golf Course. The wetland collects runoff from the surrounding landscape and is surficially isolated from other aquatic resources. Non-Jurisdictional (USACE): does not have a continuous surficial connection to a TNW or RPW. Non-Wetland Aquatic Resources Perennial Stream A - - R2UB 3,337 ln ft R2UBFx Yes 1 - Perennial Stream A (South Branch Vermillion River) transects the southern wooded portion of the study area east to west. The stream collects runoff from the surrounding area including Wetland 1 and flows southeast offsite. Perennial Stream A is a tributary of the Vermillion River. The stream is approximately 4 to 19 feet wide and had shallow banks approximately 0.5 to 3 feet in height. USACE- Jurisdictional: tributary classifies as a Relatively Permanent Water (RPW) and contributes surface water flow to an offsite Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW). Pa g e 1 8 4 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 10 Tract Management Company, LP 8 Report Preparation The procedures followed for this wetland delineation are in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) (August 2010). This report describes site conditions for a specific date in time and is generally valid for a period of five years from the date of the final field investigation and delineation, which was May 30 and June 13, 2024. 9 Conclusion The field delineation identified 10 wetlands, 1 perennial stream, and 1 erosional feature within the study area. Each of the delineated resources is described in Table 1. Two of the wetlands and the perennial stream are anticipated to be USACE-jurisdictional and WCA-regulated. Eight of the wetlands and the erosional feature are not anticipated to be regulated. 10 Disclaimer Kimley-Horn has prepared this document based on limited field observations and our interpretation, as scientists, of applicable regulations and agency guidance. While Kimley-Horn believes our interpretation to be accurate, final authority to interpret the regulations lies with the appropriate regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies occasionally issue guidance that changes the interpretation of published regulations. Guidance issued after the date of this report has the potential to invalidate our conclusions and/or recommendations and may cause a need to reevaluate our conclusions and/or recommendations. Because Kimley-Horn has no regulatory authority, the Client understands that proceeding based solely upon this document does not protect the Client from potential sanction or fines from the applicable regulatory agencies. The Client acknowledges that they have the opportunity to submit documentation to the regulatory agencies for concurrence prior to proceeding with any work. If the Client elects not to do so, then the Client proceeds at their sole risk. Page 185 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 | 11 Tract Management Company, LP References Climatology Working Group, University of Minnesota. Historical Climate Data Retrieval: Daily or Monthly Temperature, Precipitation, Snow Data by Target Location. Available at http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical.htm, accessed July 2024. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Available at https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd, accessed July 2024. Minnesota Climatology Working Group. Historical Climate Data Retrieval: Wetland Delineation Monthly Precipitation Data Retrieval from Gridded Database. Available at http://climate.umn.edu/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp, accessed July 2024. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Information regarding Minnesota wetland regulations (includes links to other regulatory websites). Available at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/index.html, accessed July 2024. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Wetland Conservation Act Contacts (includes link to LGU directory). Available at https://bwsr.state.mn.us/wetland-conservation-act-contacts, accessed July 2024. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. MnTOPO (July 2024). Shapefiles available at http://arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/maps/mntopo/. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Public Waters Basin and Watercourse Delineations (June 2020). Shapefiles available at https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-mn-public-waters. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. National Wetland Inventory Update for Minnesota (May 2019). Shapefiles available at https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv-2009-2014. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Water and Climate Center. Available at https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/navigate_wets.html, accessed July 2024. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed July 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87- 1.January 1987. Available at http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/1987%20Manual.pdf. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) (August 2010). Available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/reg_supp/. U.S. Geological Survey. LiDAR Data. Acquired via DataGateway, accessed July 2024. U.S. Geological Survey. National Hydrography Dataset. Shapefiles available at https://nhd.usgs.gov/, accessed July 2024. U.S. Geological Survey. Topographical Map. Accessed via ESRI at http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=30e5fe3149c34df1ba922e6f5bbf808f and via Topo View at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.01/-100.06, accessed July 2024. Page 186 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 Tract Management Company, LP Figures Page 187 of 503 ¯Figure 1. Project Location Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 195 t h S t W F lag s t a ff A v e Fl a g s t af f A ve 1 93rd S t W A k i n R d 190t h St W Pilo t K n o b R d V e r m i l l i o n Ri v e r 2 35th S t W 220th S t W E s s e x A v e 245th St W 212 th S t W E s s e x Av e 2 55th St W 3 190th St W 200t h S t W 1 97t h S t W Jim Bell Park And Preserve South BranchVermillio n Ri ve r 8t h St 210th S t W 240th St W 220th St W 225th St W De n m a r k A v e 213th St W 230th St W B i s c a y ne A v e W Ah e rn B l v d 220 t h S t W C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W Middle Creek Park Farmington 2 6 0th S t E 255 th St W Al v e r n o A v e Cam b o d ia A ve 2 5 0 t h S t W D e n m a r k A v e B i s c a y ne A v e W 260th St W BlaineAve Dakota County Park Conservation Area 232nd S t E 210th St E B la i n e A v e Au dr ey A ve 230th St E 245t h S t E A n n e t t e A v e 220th S t E 2 60t h St E B la in e A v e Legend Study Area 0 0.5 1 Miles Pa g e 1 8 8 o f 5 0 3 ¯Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP Legend Study Area 0 1,000 2,000 US Feet Pa g e 1 8 9 o f 5 0 3 ¯Figure 3. PWI - NWI - NHD - 2ft Contours Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 9 t h S t 2 2 5 t h S t W 1 0 t h S t 2 2 3 r d S t W 2 2 4 t h S t W C a n t o n C i r 2 2 0 t h S t W C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W Chippe n d a l e A v e W Fountain V alley Go l f Cour s ePrairiePines Pa r k P r air ieWaterway Gr eenway South Branch Vermillion River C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W Sun E dis o n Ca s tle Roc k CS G -S ola r Far c B e a u m ont Ave 2 2 5 t h S t W B e rring A v e 2 2 0 t h S t W South Branch Vermillion River B i s c a y n e A v e W 938 926 918 912 900 928 920 910 914 908 938 934 920 922 916 914 910 916 906 908 902 916 908 922 906 912 910 932 918 900 894 902 900 906 904 916 912 914 904 920 918 920 924 918 914 914 904 900 898 898 896 894 926 924 922 912 900 902 936 922 920 920 918 912 912 904904 900 902 898 898 898 894 892 934 932 928 926 928 928 924 924924 924 924 920 922 922 920 918 916 912 912 908 908 904 906 902 902 902 902 904 904 904 902 900 900 900 900 896 896 894 894 892 890 890 902 900 894 PEM1A PFO1A PFO1APEM1AfPEM1A PSS1A PEM1Af PEM1A PEM1Af PABH PEM1C PEM1Ad PUBH PEM1A PUBH PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PUBH PEM1C PEM1F PEM1A PUBHx PUBHx PUBHx PEM1C PUBHx PEM1C PUBHx PUBHx PEM1Ad PEM1A PUBHx PEM1C PEM1C PEM1C PEM1FPEM1F PSS1A PEM1Cd PSS1/EM1A PEM1Ad PSS1C PEM1Cd PEM1Ad PABHx PABHx PUBF PABH PEM1A PEM1C PSS1A PEM1Af PFO1A PEM1Af PUBHx PEM1Ad PEM1C PSS1A PEM1A PUBHxPUBHx PEM1Ad PFO1A PEM1A PEM1A PEM1Cd PEM1Af PSS1A R2UBFx PEM1Ad R4SBC R4SBC R4SBC R4SBC R5UBH R5UBH South Branch Vermillion River 105186 Legend Study Area 2ft Contour DNR Public Watercourses NHD Flowline NHD Waterbody NWI 0 500 1,000 US Feet Pa g e 1 9 0 o f 5 0 3 ¯Figure 4. Hydric Soils Map Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 12th S t 9 t h S t 225th St W 1 0 t h S t 22 3 rd St W 224th S t W Canton Cir 22 0th S t W C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W Chipp e n d a l e A v e W Fountain Valley Golf CoursePrairie Pines Park Prairie Waterway Greenway South B ranch V e r million R iver C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W Sun Edison Castle Rock CSG - Solar Far Be aumo n t A v e 225 th St W B e rring A ve 220th St W South B r a n ch Vermillion River 2 30th S t W B i s c a y n e A v e W % % % & $ % % % %% % % % % % % % % : % % % % % % % % % % %% % & % % % % % $ && % & & % % % % % % & & & & && & & && & & $ % % % % % Legend Study Area Hydric Rating by Map Unit Not Hydric (0%) Hydric (1-32%) Hydric (33-65%) Hydric (66-99%) Hydric (100%) 0 500 1,000 US Feet Imagery Courtesy of Dakota County (2023) Pa g e 1 9 1 o f 5 0 3 ¯Figure 5. FEMA Floodplain Map Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 12thS t 9 t h S t 2 2 5 t h S t W 1 0 t h S t 2 2 3 r d S t W 2 2 4 t h S t W C a n t o n C i r 2 2 0 t h S t W C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W Chipp e n d a l e A v e W Fo u nta in V all e y Golf C o u rs ePrairiePines P ar k P r air ie Wate rway Gr een w a y South Branch Vermillion River C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W S u n E dis on Cas tle Roc k CSG -So lar Far c Beaumo n t A v e 2 2 5 t h S t W B e rring A v e 2 2 0 t h S t W South Branch Vermillion River 2 3 0 t h S t W B i s c a y n e A v e W 27037C0219E 2011-12-02 27037C0238E 2011-12-02 27037C0360E 2011-12-02 27037C0380E 2011-12-02 Legend Study Area FIRM Panel 100-Year Floodplain AE 0 500 1,000 US Feet Imagery Courtesy of Dakota County (2023) Pa g e 1 9 2 o f 5 0 3 2 2 0 t h S t W 2 2 0 t h S t W E x p r es s A uto Tr ans por t B&B Transf o r m e r Fa r m i n g t o n E l e c t r i c 2 2 4 t h S t W C a n t o n C i r 2 2 5 t h S t W 2 2 5 t h S t W C a m bria n W a y Fo untain V al ley Go lf Co ur s e B&B Transfor m e r Queen's In v e s tm e nts P r air i e P in es Par k D a k o t a M o t o r s F a r m i n g t o n M i n i S t o r a g e V e r c o m /I R B F o u n t a i n V a l l e y Go l f C o u r s e 2 2 0 t h S t W 2 2 5 t h S t W B e r r i ng Ave F o u n t a i n V a l l e y G o l f C o u r s e Wetland 3 0.18 Ac Wetland 4 0.28 Ac Wetland 5 0.36 Ac Wetland 6 0.08 Ac Wetland 7 0.09 Ac Wetland 8 0.1 Ac Wetland 9 0.07 Ac Wetland 10 0.02 Ac Wetland 2 6.09 AcSP-4 SP-1 SP-3 SP-5SP-6SP-2 SP-7SP-8SP-9 SP-10 SP-12 SP-13 SP-14SP-11 Legend Study Area Sample Point Delineated Wetland Type 1 / Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 2 / Fresh Wet Meadow Type 3 / Shallow Marsh Type 5 / Shallow Open Water Type 6 / Scrub Shrub Swamp Linear Feature Erosional Feature Perennial Stream Figure 6.1 Delineation Summary Map 0 200 400 US Feet Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP Imagery Courtesy of Dakota County (2023) ¯ South BranchVer m il l i o n R i v e r 2 2 0 t h S t W 2 2 5t h S t W 2 30 t h S t W 2 2 0 t h S t W C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W 1 2 Pa g e 1 9 3 o f 5 0 3 2 2 5 t h S t W 2 2 5 t h S t W S o u th Br anc h V erm illion River 2 2 5 t h S t W Fo u n t a i n V a l l e y G o l f C o u r s e SouthBranchVermillion River B i s c a y n e A v e W Wetland 1 46.28 AcPerennial Stream A 3337 Ln ft SP-15 SP-19 SP-16 SP-17SP-18 Legend Study Area Sample Point Delineated Wetland Type 1 / Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 2 / Fresh Wet Meadow Type 3 / Shallow Marsh Type 5 / Shallow Open Water Type 6 / Scrub Shrub Swamp Linear Feature Erosional Feature Perennial Stream Figure 6.2 Delineation Summary Map 0 200 400 US Feet Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP Imagery Courtesy of Dakota County (2023) ¯ South BranchVer m il l i o n R i v e r 2 2 0 t h S t W 2 2 5t h S t W 2 30 t h S t W 2 2 0 t h S t W C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W 1 2 Pa g e 1 9 4 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 Tract Management Company, LP Appendix A: Hydric Soils Information Page 195 of 503 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Dakota County, Minnesota (Farmington Technology Park Study Area) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/26/2024 Page 1 of 5 49 4 0 2 0 0 49 4 0 4 0 0 49 4 0 6 0 0 49 4 0 8 0 0 49 4 1 0 0 0 49 4 1 2 0 0 49 4 1 4 0 0 49 4 1 6 0 0 49 4 1 8 0 0 49 4 2 0 0 0 49 4 0 2 0 0 49 4 0 4 0 0 49 4 0 6 0 0 49 4 0 8 0 0 49 4 1 0 0 0 49 4 1 2 0 0 49 4 1 4 0 0 49 4 1 6 0 0 49 4 1 8 0 0 49 4 2 0 0 0 489700 489900 490100 490300 490500 490700 490900 489700 489900 490100 490300 490500 490700 490900 44° 37' 55'' N 93 ° 7 ' 5 5 ' ' W 44° 37' 55'' N 93 ° 6 ' 4 8 ' ' W 44° 36' 52'' N 93 ° 7 ' 5 5 ' ' W 44° 36' 52'' N 93 ° 6 ' 4 8 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 0 450 900 1800 2700 Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Meters Map Scale: 1:9,420 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Page 196 of 503 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Dakota County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 19, Sep 9, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 29, 2023—Sep 13, 2023 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Dakota County, Minnesota (Farmington Technology Park Study Area) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/26/2024 Page 2 of 5 Pa g e 1 9 7 o f 5 0 3 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 39B Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 43.8 12.6% 41B Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 1 11.3 3.3% 98 Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded 95 1.3 0.4% 129 Cylinder loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 15 48.0 13.8% 208 Kato silty clay loam 95 34.3 9.9% 213B Klinger silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes 5 0.7 0.2% 252 Marshan silty clay loam 90 87.4 25.1% 255 Mayer silt loam 90 12.7 3.6% 301B Lindstrom silt loam, till plain, 2 to 6 percent slopes 5 0.4 0.1% 411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 0 30.7 8.8% 411B Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 0 23.5 6.8% 411C Waukegan silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 10.3 3.0% 415B Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 17.5 5.0% 539 Klossner muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes 100 5.1 1.5% 611C Hawick gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 19.0 5.5% 1895B Carmi loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 5 1.7 0.5% 1896B Ostrander-Carmi loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 0.2 0.0% Totals for Area of Interest 347.8 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Dakota County, Minnesota Farmington Technology Park Study Area Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/26/2024 Page 3 of 5 Page 198 of 503 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Dakota County, Minnesota Farmington Technology Park Study Area Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/26/2024 Page 4 of 5 Page 199 of 503 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Dakota County, Minnesota Farmington Technology Park Study Area Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/26/2024 Page 5 of 5 Page 200 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 Tract Management Company, LP Appendix B: Historic Aerial Review Page 201 of 503 Appendix B. Historic Aerial Review* Date Image Taken Climate Condition***1 2 4/16/1991 Normal Conditions NV NC 9/17/2002 Wetter than Normal NV NC 3/31/2004 Normal Conditions NV NC 4/3/2012 Normal Conditions SS SS 9/15/2013 Normal Conditions SS SS 11/12/2015 Normal Conditions SS NV 6/4/2020 Normal Conditions SS SW 8/12/2021 Drier than Normal CS NV 5/20/2023 Wetter than Normal SS SS 4/24/2024 Normal Conditions SS SS 7 7 6 6 86%86% Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wetland Present?Yes Yes Wetland Number 1 1 *Methodology for determining the presence of wetland explained in Guidance for Offsite Hydrology/ Wetland Determinations from Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and St Paul District Corps of Engineers (July 1, 2016) **CS = Crop Stress, NC = Not Cropped, SS = Soil Wetness Signature, SW = Standing Water, AP = Altered Pattern, NV = Normal Vegetative Cover, DO= Drowned Out ***Climate condition based on USACE APT 90-day rolling precipitation total for wetland hydrology determination for the given photo date. Methodology is described in report. Image Interpretation** (Area of Investigation) Has wetland signature in 30% or more in normal years? Identified on NWI Hydrology indicators observed during field review? Number of normal years Number of normal years with wet signatures Percent of normal years with wet signatures Hydric Soils present Pa g e 2 0 2 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO $SULO Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 0 3 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO 6HSWHPEHU Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 0 4 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO 0DUFK Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 0 5 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO $SULO Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 0 6 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO 6HSWHPEHU Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 0 7 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO 1RYHPEHU Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 0 8 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO -XQH Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 0 9 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO $XJXVW Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 1 0 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO 0D\ Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 1 1 o f 5 0 3 ¯+LVWRULF$HULDO $SULO Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP 2 24th St W 225th St W 2 25 th St W South Branch V e r million River Fountain Valley Golf Course Sout h Bra n ch V er m illion River B i s c a y n e A v e W /HJHQG Study Area Historic AOI 0 250 500 US Feet ,PDJHU\&RXUWHV\RI*RRJOH(DUWK Pa g e 2 1 2 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 Tract Management Company, LP Appendix C: Precipitation Data Page 213 of 503 values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Mar-91 Feb-91 Jan-91 estimated precipitation total for this location:2.88 0.85 0.16 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:1.11 0.56 0.55 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:2.07 1.16 1.09 type of month:dry normal wet wet normal dry monthly score 3 *3 = 9 2 *2 = 4 1 *1 = 1 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Aug-02 Jul-02 Jun-02 estimated precipitation total for this location:8.08 4.87 9.46 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.42 2.5 3.82 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:5.77 4.88 5.26 type of month:dry normal wet wet normal wet monthly score 3 *3 = 9 2 *2 = 4 1 *3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) 14 (Normal) 16 (Wet) Pa g e 2 1 4 o f 5 0 3 values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Feb-04 Jan-04 Dec-03 estimated precipitation total for this location:1.42 0.35 0.71 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:0.56 0.55 0.76 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:1.16 1.09 1.4 type of month:dry normal wet wet dry dry monthly score 3 *3 = 9 2 *1 = 2 1 *1 = 1 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Mar-12 Feb-12 Jan-12 estimated precipitation total for this location:1.82 2.06 0.54 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:1.11 0.56 0.55 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:2.07 1.16 1.09 type of month:dry normal wet normal wet dry monthly score 3 *2 = 6 2 *3 = 6 1 *1 = 1 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) 12 (Normal) 13 (Normal) Pa g e 2 1 5 o f 5 0 3 values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Aug-13 Jul-13 Jun-13 estimated precipitation total for this location:1.5 4.71 5.29 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.42 2.5 3.82 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:5.77 4.88 5.26 type of month:dry normal wet dry normal wet monthly score 3 *1 = 3 2 *2 = 4 1 *3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Oct-15 Sep-15 Aug-15 estimated precipitation total for this location:1.94 5.24 4.14 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:1.5 1.94 3.42 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:3.39 5.34 5.77 type of month:dry normal wet normal normal normal monthly score 3 *2 = 6 2 *2 = 4 1 *2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) 10 (Normal) 12 (Normal) Pa g e 2 1 6 o f 5 0 3 values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. May-20 Apr-20 Mar-20 estimated precipitation total for this location:6.51 1.29 2.69 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.02 1.98 1.11 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:5.19 3.49 2.07 type of month:dry normal wet wet dry wet monthly score 3 *3 = 9 2 *1 = 2 1 *3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Jul-21 Jun-21 May-21 estimated precipitation total for this location:1.26 2.42 4.17 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:2.5 3.82 3.02 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:4.88 5.26 5.19 type of month:dry normal wet dry dry normal monthly score 3 *1 = 3 2 *1 = 2 1 *2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) 14 (Normal) 7 (Dry) Pa g e 2 1 7 o f 5 0 3 values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Apr-23 Mar-23 Feb-23 estimated precipitation total for this location:2.66 2.18 2.24 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:1.98 1.11 0.56 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:3.49 2.07 1.16 type of month:dry normal wet normal wet wet monthly score 3 *2 = 6 2 *3 = 6 1 *3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Mar-24 Feb-24 Jan-24 estimated precipitation total for this location:2.46R 0.5 0.16 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:1.11 0.56 0.55 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:2.07 1.16 1.09 type of month:dry normal wet wet dry dry monthly score 3 *3 = 9 2 *1 = 2 1 *1 = 1 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) 15 (Wet) 12 (Normal) Pa g e 2 1 8 o f 5 0 3 values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. Apr-24 Mar-24 Feb-24 estimated precipitation total for this location:3.15R 2.46R 0.5 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:1.98 1.11 0.56 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:3.49 2.07 1.16 type of month:dry normal wet normal wet dry monthly score 3 *2 = 6 2 *3 = 6 1 *1 = 1 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet) values are in inches first prior month:second prior month:third prior month: A 'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- based estimates. May-24 Apr-24 Mar-24 estimated precipitation total for this location:6.87R 3.33 2.29 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than:3.03 1.98 1.11 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than:5.17 3.48 2.07 type of month:dry normal wet wet normal wet monthly score 3 *3 = 9 2 *2 = 4 1 *3 = 3 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry)10 to 14 (normal)15 to 18 (wet)16 (Wet) 13 (Normal) Pa g e 2 1 9 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 Tract Management Company, LP Appendix D: Field Data Sheets Page 220 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-05-30 Sampling Point:SP-1MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113NR19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 30 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACU 35 70 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 5 4 75 300 80.00% Y0 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 N Rubus idaeus 5 N FACU Equisetum arvense 15 Y FAC (Plot size:5' Galium aparine 5 N FACU 75 2.94 165 485 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 25 25 30 90 Lonicera japonica 60 Y FACU Rhamnus cathartica 15 Y FAC Salix nigra 25 Y OBL Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in a deep depression in a wooded area, surrounded by the Fountain Valley Golf Course. Y Fraxinus pennsylvanica 35 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes 129 - Cylinder loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI Classification: Y (If no, explain in remarks) 3 Lat:Long:44.63016964 Datum:-93.12227217 Investigator(s):Mason Kunkel, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Toeslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 221 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Sand Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) 10YR 4/2 95 5YR 5/6 5 C M Sand 16 - 24 10YR 4/2 100 Y Sampling Point:SP-1 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 3 10YR 3/2 100 Sandy Loam 3 - 16 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 222 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Mason Kunkel, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Hillslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name 129 - Cylinder loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI Classification: Y (If no, explain in remarks) 2 Lat:Long:44.62994966 Datum:-93.12228894 Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located on a hillslope between the ends of the Fountain Valley Golf Course and a forested depression. N Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status Lonicera japonica 15 Y FACU Lonicera japonica 35 Y FACU Rhamnus cathartica 20 Y FAC Salix interior 10 N FACW 0 0 65 195 65 3.19 155 495 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Poa pratensis 45 Y FAC (Plot size:5' Lotus corniculatus 10 N FACU Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 55 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 30 60 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 5 3 60 240 60.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 35 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-05-30 Sampling Point:SP-2MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):None S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 223 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) N Sampling Point:SP-2 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 24 10YR 3/1 100 Sandy Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were not observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Wetland hydrology was not observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 224 of 503 Project/Site Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 95 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-05-30 Sampling Point:SP-3MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PFO1A , or hydrology , or hydrology Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 80 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACU 120 240 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 6 6 15 60 100.00% Y0 Galium aparine 15 N Phalaris arundinacea 10 N FACW Urtica dioica 30 Y FACW (Plot size:5' Solanum dulcamara 25 Y FAC 45 2.52 220 555 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 85 255 Rhamnus cathartica 30 Y FAC Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 Y FACW Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 N FACW Acer negundo 30 Y FAC Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in a large forested depression between 220th Street W and the Fountain Valley Golf Course. Y Ulmus americana 50 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: Y (If no, explain in remarks) Lat:Long:Datum:-93.1214966 Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Investigator(s): Mason Kunkel, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Depression Slope (%): 1 44.63015904 Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 225 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) 10YR 4/2 98 2.5Y 6/8 2 C M Silty Clay Loam Y Sampling Point:SP-3 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 14 10YR 2/1 100 Silty Clay Loam 18 - 24 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 226 of 503 Project/Site Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: Y (If no, explain in remarks) Lat:Long: Investigator(s): Mason Kunkel, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Slope (%): 1 44.6301093 Datum:-93.12141387 Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in a forested area 6 inches upslope of wetland. N Fraxinus pennsylvanica 30 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status Acer saccharinum 20 Y FACW Ulmus americana 25 Y FACW Rhamnus cathartica 40 Y FAC Acer negundo 15 Y FAC 0 0 55 165 55 2.76 230 635 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 5 N FACW Urtica dioica 35 Y FACW (Plot size:5' Galium aparine 20 Y FACU Parthenocissus quinquefolia 20 Y Rubus idaeus 20 Y FACU Phalaris arundinacea Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 100 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACU 115 230 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 9 6 60 240 66.67% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-05-30 Sampling Point:SP-4MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PFO1A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 227 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X N Sampling Point:SP-4 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 24 10YR 3/1 100 Silty Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were not observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X One secondary hydrology indicator was observed, but does not constitute wetland hydrology. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 228 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-05-30 Sampling Point:SP-5MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 100 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACW 30 60 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 5 4 20 80 80.00% Y0 Vitis riparia 10 N Eutrochium purpureum 5 N FAC Persicaria sagittata Carex lacustris 55 Y OBL (Plot size:5' Carex utriculata 25 Y OBL 20 1.80 150 270 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 5 N OBL 85 85 15 45 Rubus idaeus 20 Y FACU Populus tremuloides 10 Y FAC Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in a semi-forested slight depression with sedge/grass understory, between 220th Street W and the Fountain Valley Golf Course. Y Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: Y (If no, explain in remarks) 1 Lat:Long:44.63000624 Datum:-93.11786757 Investigator(s):Mason Kunkel, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 229 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Clay Loam Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy Clay Loam 26 - 30 10YR 4/1 96 7.5YR 4/6 4 C M Y Sampling Point:SP-5 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 16 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy Loam 16 - 26 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 230 of 503 Project/Site Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: Y (If no, explain in remarks) Lat:Long: Investigator(s): Mason Kunkel, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Slope (%): 2 44.63001932 Datum:-93.11785676 Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) The sample point was located on a slight rise south of a wet meadow in the northeast corner of the Mountain Valley Golf Course. N Populus tremuloides 20 Y FAC Dominan t Species Indicator Status Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW Populus tremuloides 20 Y FAC Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW 0 0 100 300 25 3.11 135 420 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Poa pratensis 60 Y FAC (Plot size:5' Parthenocissus quinquefolia 10 N FACU Solidago canadensis 10 N Cirsium arvense 5 N FACU Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 85 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACU 10 20 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 5 5 25 100 100.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-05-30 Sampling Point:SP-6MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 231 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Y Sampling Point:SP-6 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 16 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy Loam 16 - 24 10YR 2/1 96 7.5YR 5/6 4 C M Sandy Clay Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil indicators were not observed. Soils are assumed to be non-hydric due to the lack of wetland hydrology. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X One secondary hydrology indicator was observed, which does not constitute wetland hydrology. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 232 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 5 6 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation X Dominance test is >50% X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-7MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PSS1A , or hydrology , or hydrology Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 60 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 OBL 40 80 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 3 3 0 0 100.00% Y0 Equisetum fluviatile 5 N Carex utriculata 40 Y OBL (Plot size:5' Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW 25 1.47 85 125 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 45 45 0 0 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACW Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in an opening in a buckthorn thicket dominated by sedge and grass species. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N 39B - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes NWI Classification: 1 Lat:Long:44.6272097 Datum:-93.1200777 Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 233 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X X Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Y Sampling Point:SP-7 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 24 10YR 5/1 96 10YR 5/8 4 C M Sandy Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 234 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Backslope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N 39B - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes NWI Classification: 2 Lat:Long:44.62721358 Datum:-93.12022785 Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located on a slight slope, less than 0.5 feet above a wetland depression. N Populus deltoides 50 Y FAC Dominan t Species Indicator Status Frangula alnus 10 N FACW Cornus alternifolia 50 Y FAC Frangula alnus 30 Y FACW Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 FACW 45 45 100 300 90 2.26 210 475 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Carex utriculata 40 Y OBL (Plot size:5' Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW Equisetum fluviatile 5 N Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 60 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 OBL 65 130 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 5 5 0 0 100.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-8MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):None S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 235 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X Y Sampling Point:SP-8 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 4 10YR 3/1 100 Silty Clay Loam 4 - 24 10YR 3/1 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M Sandy Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X One secondary hydrology indicator was observed, which does not constitute wetland hydrology. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 236 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: 1 Lat:Long:44.6275424 Datum:-93.12559779 Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in a depression in a forest opening dominated by reed canary grass. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Status Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW 10 10 0 0 5 1.94 102 198 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW (Plot size:5' Typha x glauca 10 N OBL Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 N Cirsium arvense 2 N FACU Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 97 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACW 90 180 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 2 2 2 8 100.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-9MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 237 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X X Y Sampling Point:SP-9 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 16 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy Clay Loam 16 - 32 10YR 2/1 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M Sandy Clay Loam 32 - 38 10YR 5/1 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Sand Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 238 of 503 Project/Site Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: Lat:Long: Investigator(s): Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Slope (%): 1 44.62798936 Datum:-93.12587363 Y N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located on a terrace above a wetland depression with standing water, adjacent to a gravel trail. N Fraxinus pennsylvanica 30 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status Frangula alnus 15 Y FACW Rhamnus cathartica 30 Y FAC Ribes americanum 10 Y FACW 0 0 30 90 40 2.35 85 200 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 (Plot size:5' Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 0 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 55 110 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 4 4 0 0 100.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 45 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-10MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):None S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 239 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X N Sampling Point:SP-10 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 14 10YR 2/1 100 Silt Loam 14 - 24 10YR 4/1 45 10YR 5/6 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam 14 - 24 10YR 3/1 35 Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were not observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Sandy Clay Loam One secondary hydrology indicator was observed, which does not constitute wetland hydrology. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 240 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: 0 Lat:Long:44.627988 Datum:-93.12583953 Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located at a wooded depression with standing water, north of a gravel trail between golfing greens. Y Fraxinus pennsylvanica 30 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status 0 0 0 0 0 2.00 30 60 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 (Plot size:5' Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 0 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 30 60 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 1 0 0 100.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-11MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) None , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 241 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Y Sampling Point:SP-11 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were assumed due to the presence of standing water and a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) X Depth (inches):6Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 242 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: 0 Lat:Long:44.62856937 Datum:-93.12548427 Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in a linear depression dominated by reed canary grass, west of a golfing green. Y Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status Populus deltoides 10 Y FAC Acer saccharinum 10 Y FACW Populus deltoides 25 Y FAC 0 0 55 165 25 2.41 135 325 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Phalaris arundinacea 50 Y FACW (Plot size:5' Cornus alternifolia 20 Y FAC Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 70 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 80 160 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 6 6 0 0 100.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-12MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 243 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) X True Aquatic Plants (B14) X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Y Sampling Point:SP-12 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 12 10YR 4/1 95 10YR 5/8 5 C M Sandy Loam Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil indicators were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes X NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes X No Depth (inches):8 6 Wetland hydrology indicators were observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 244 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-13MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Convex S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 55 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACW 70 140 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 7 7 0 0 100.00% Y Vitis riparia 5 Y FACW 5 Equisetum pratense 5 N Phalaris arundinacea 30 Y FACW (Plot size:5' Cornus rugosa 20 Y FAC 35 2.48 135 335 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 0 0 65 195 Populus deltoides 30 Y FAC Acer ginnala 5 N FAC Populus deltoides 10 Y FAC Acer saccharinum 10 Y FACW Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located on a forested rise, west of a forested depression. N Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20 Y FACW Dominan t Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: 4 Lat:Long:44.62856937 Datum:-93.12548427 Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Shoulder Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 245 of 503 X Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X One secondary indicator was observed, and therefore does not constitute wetland hydrology. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil indicators were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Y Sampling Point:SP-13 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 16 10YR 3/1 90 10YR 5/4 5 C M Sandy Loam US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 246 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N 252 - Marshan silty clay loam NWI Classification: 0 Lat:Long:44.62847957 Datum:-93.12487575 Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in a depression with cattails and standing water, surrounded by a golfing green. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Status 30 30 0 0 0 1.25 40 50 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Typha x glauca 30 Y OBL (Plot size:5' Phragmites australis 10 Y FACW Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 40 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 10 20 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 2 2 0 0 100.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-14MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 247 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Y Sampling Point:SP-14 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were assumed due to the presence of standing water and dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region 3X Page 248 of 503 Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N 208 - Kato silty clay loam NWI Classification: 1 Lat:Long:44.61957187 Datum:-93.121406 Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present?Yes Absolute % Cover30' If yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in an unmanicured depression directly southwest of an agricultural field. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Status 20 20 5 15 0 2.50 70 175 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 5 FAC Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FACW (Plot size:5' Scirpus atrovirens 15 Y OBL Solidago lepida 15 Y Salix petiolaris 5 N OBL Trifolium pratense 10 N FACU Juncus tenuis Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 70 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACU 20 40 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 3 2 25 100 66.67% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-15MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest RegionPage 249 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Y Sampling Point:SP-15 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist) % Color (moist) %Type* Loc** 0 - 14 10YR 2/1 100 Sandy Clay Loam 14 - 26 10YR 2/1 95 10YR5/6 5 C M 26 - 32 2.5Y 6/8 5 C M Sandy Clay Loam 26 - 32 10YR 5/1 60 10YR 3/1 30 C M Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil indicators were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) X Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Sandy Clay Loam Wetland hydrology was observed. 26 - 32 10YR 5/8 5 C M Sandy Clay Loam *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest RegionPage 250 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N 208 - Kato silty clay loam NWI Classification: 0 Lat:Long:44.61957187 Datum:-93.121406 N N VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located on the edge of an agricultural field and NWI wetland. N Dominan t Species Indicator Status 0 0 5 15 0 3.90 41 160 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 1 5 Solidago lepida 25 Y FACU (Plot size:5' Chenopodium album 10 Y FACU Equisetum arvense 5 N Zea mays 1 N UPL N0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 41 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FAC 0 0 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 2 0 35 140 0.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was not observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-16MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W Are "normal circumstances" present? No (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PEM1Af , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 251 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) N Sampling Point:SP-16 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 18 10YR 2/1 100 Silty Clay 18 - 30 10YR 3/1 95 10YR 4/6 5 C M Silty Clay Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Non-hydric soils are assumed as hydrology and non-hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Wetland hydrology was not observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Page 252 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Planted soybean crops have observable crop stress. Problematic hydrophytic vegetation observed as area is cropped and has hydric soils and hydrology. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-17MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 1 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 0 0 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 1 0 0 0 0.00% Y0 X Glycine max 1 N UPL (Plot size:5' 0 5.00 1 5 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 1 5 0 0 0 0 Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located on the north egde of an agricultural field, at the lowest part of an erosional feature that extends southwest of the field. Y Dominan t Species Indicator Status Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? Yes N 208 - Kato silty clay loam NWI Classification: 1 Lat:Long:44.61783685 Datum:-93.12452899 Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 253 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14)X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) X X Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) 10YR 5/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M Clay Y Sampling Point:SP-17 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 10 10YR 2/1 100 Silty Clay Loam 10 - 18 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 254 of 503 Project/Site Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Dominance test is >50% 6 Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s):Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner:Tract Management State: Slope Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name N 208 - Kato silty clay loam NWI Classification: 1 Lat:Long:44.61789052 Datum:-93.12471548 N Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present? No Absolute % Cover30' f yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located on a gradual slope approximately 0.5 feet upslope of the wetland sample point. Soybean crops are healthier; ther is no visible sign of crop stress. N Dominan t Species Indicator Status 0 0 0 0 0 5.00 8 40 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 8 40 Glycine max 8 Y UPL (Plot size:5' N0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 8 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 0 0 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) N 1 0 0 0 0.00% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was not observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-18MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Convex S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) N/A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X Page 255 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Y Sampling Point:SP-18 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type*Loc** 0 - 10 10YR 2/1 100 Silty Clay Loam 10 - 20 10YR 5/1 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M Clay Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soils were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) N Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Wetland hydrology was not observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region X X Page 256 of 503 Project/Site: Slope (%): Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year?(If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation , soil significantly disturbed? Are vegetation , soil naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soil present?Is the sampled area within a wetland? Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Dominance Test Worksheet ) 1 (A) 2 3 (B) 4 5 (A/B) =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum )Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total % Cover of: 2 OBL species x 1 = 3 FACW species x 2 = 4 FAC species x 3 = 5 FACU species x 4 = =Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb stratum )Column totals (A)(B) 1 Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 3 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X Dominance test is >50% 6 X Prevalence index is ≤3.0* 7 8 9 10 =Total Cover Woody vine stratum ) 1 2 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Investigator(s): Cassie Baumgartner, Max Forsman Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Applicant/Owner: Tract Management State: Depression Section, Township, Range: Soil Map Unit Name: N 255 - Mayer silt loam NWI Classification: 1 Lat:Long:44.61816178 Datum:-93.12676398 Y Y VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Are "normal circumstances" present?Yes Absolute % Cover30' If yes, optional wetland site ID: The sample point was located in an opening in a buckthorn thicket dominated by Carex species. Y 30 Y Dominan t Species Indicator Status Rhamnus cathartica 30 Y FAC 0 0 30 90 30 2.38 130 310 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* (explain) 0 0 Carex cristatella 90 Y FACW (Plot size:5' Fragaria virginiana 5 N FACU Solidago lepida 5 N Y0 Farmington Technology Park Hydrophytic vegetation present? (Plot size:30' 100 (Plot size:15' Tree Stratum (Plot size: WGS 84 FACU 90 180 Morphological adaptations* (provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Y 3 2 10 40 66.67% A dominance of hydrophytic vegetation was observed. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Midwest Region City/County:Dakota County Sampling Date: *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 2024-06-13 Sampling Point:SP-19MN Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave S05 T113N R19W (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) PSS1A , or hydrology , or hydrology US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest RegionPage 257 of 503 Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) X X Aquatic Fauna (B13) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) X X Y Sampling Point:SP-19 Depth (Inches) Matrix Redox Features Texture RemarksColor (moist)%Color (moist)%Type* Loc** 0 - 26 10YR 2/1 100 Silty Clay 26 - 32 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 5/8 10 C M Sand Remarks: Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depleted Matrix (F3) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil Indicators: Describe recorded data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Remarks: Type: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Hydric soil present? Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Hydric soil indicators were observed. Depth (inches): Sediment Deposits (B2) SOIL Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Saturation (A3) HYDROLOGY Surface Water (A1)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) 2 cm Muck (A10) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Histisol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) No X Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Depth (inches):Yes FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Iron Deposits (B5) Drift Deposits (B3) (includes capillary fringe) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface water present? Yes NoSaturation present? Field Observations: Depth (inches): Thin Muck Surface (C7) Y Water table present?Yes No X Depth (inches): X Wetland hydrology was observed. *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Other (explain in remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest RegionPage 258 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report July 2024 Tract Management Company, LP Appendix E: Photos Page 259 of 503 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report February and June 2024 | E-1 Tract Management Photo 1: Perennial Stream A, facing west. Image date February 2024. Photo 2: Erosional Feature A, facing southwest. Photo 3: Wet meadow portion of Wetland 1 near SP-15 facing west. Photo 4: Boundary between wetland and upland at Wetland 1 near SP-16 facing west. Photo 5: Farmed portion of Wetland 1 near SP-17, facing southwest. Photo 6: Upland area near Wetland 1 in a planted soybean field, facing east towards a farmed wetland depression. Pa g e 2 6 0 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report February and June 2024 | E-2 Tract Management Photo 7: Shrub-Carr portion of Wetland 1 at SP-19. Photo 8: Southwest corner of Wetland 1, with red-osier, green ash, buckthorn, and reed canary grass. Image date February 2024. Photo 9: Southeast boundary of Wetland 1, facing northeast. Image date February 2024. Photo 10: Forested wetland at SP-3, facing west. Photo 11: Forested upland area at SP-4, facing west. Photo 12: Wet Meadow portion of Wetland 2 at SP-5 facing north. Pa g e 2 6 1 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report February and June 2024 | E-3 Tract Management Photo 13: Upland area at SP-6, facing north towards Wetland 2. Photo 14: Forested portion of Wetland 1 at SP-1 facing north. Photo 15: Upland area at SP-2, facing north towards Wetland 3. Photo 16: Wetland 4, facing southwest. Image date February 2024. Photo 17: Wetland 5, facing south. Image date February 2024. Photo 18: Forested portion of Wetland 6 at SP-7 facing west. Pa g e 2 6 2 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report February and June 2024 | E-4 Tract Management Photo 19: Upland area at SP-8, facing east towards Wetland 6. Photo 20: Wetland 7, at SP-14 facing south. Photo 21: Forested wetland area portion of Wetland 8 at SP-12 facing west. Photo 22: Upland area at SP-13, facing east towards Wetland 8. Photo 23: Wet meadow within Wetland 9 at SP-9 facing west. Photo 24: Upland area at SP-11, facing east. Wetland 10 is adjacent to the north. Wetland 9 is across the gravel trail to the south. Pa g e 2 6 3 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park | Wetland Delineation Report February and June 2024 | E-5 Tract Management Photo 25: Wetland 10 at SP-11 facing south. Image date February 2024. Pa g e 2 6 4 o f 5 0 3 2 2 0 t h S t W 2 2 0 t h S t W E x pr es s A u to Tr an s por t B&B Transf o r m e r Fa r m i n g t o n E l e c t r i c 2 2 4 t h S t W C a n t o n C i r 2 2 5 t h S t W 2 2 5 t h S t W C a m bria n W a y Fo untain V al ley Go lf Co ur s e B&B Transfor m e r Quee n's Inv e s tm e nts P r air i e P in es Par k D a k o t a M o t o r s F a r m i n g t o n M i n i S t o r a g e V e r c o m /I R B F o u n t a i n V a l l e y Go l f C o u r s e 2 2 0 t h S t W 2 2 5 t h S t W B e r r i ng Ave F o u n t a i n V a l l e y G o l f C o u r s e Wetland 3 0.18 Ac Wetland 4 0.28 Ac Wetland 5 0.36 Ac Wetland 6 0.08 Ac Wetland 7 0.09 Ac Wetland 8 0.1 Ac Wetland 9 0.07 Ac Wetland 10 0.02 Ac Wetland 2 6.09 Ac 16 17 25 13 12 11 14 15 10 19 18 23 24 21 22 20 SP-4 SP-1 SP-3 SP-5SP-6 SP-2 SP-7SP-8 SP-9 SP-10 SP-12 SP-13 SP-14SP-11 Legend Study Area Sample Point Photo Point Delineated Wetland Type 1 / Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 2 / Fresh Wet Meadow Type 3 / Shallow Marsh Type 5 / Shallow Open Water Type 6 / Scrub Shrub Swamp Linear Feature Erosional Feature Perennial Stream Figure 6.1 Delineation Summary Map 0 200 400 US Feet Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP Imagery Courtesy of Dakota County (2023) ¯ South BranchVer m il l i o n R i v e r 2 2 0 t h S t W 2 2 5t h S t W 2 30 t h S t W 2 2 0 t h S t W C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W 1 2 Pa g e 2 6 5 o f 5 0 3 2 2 5 t h S t W 2 2 5 t h S t W S o u th Br anc h V erm illion River 2 2 5 t h S t W Fo u n t a i n V a l l e y G o l f C o u r s e SouthBranchVermillion River B i s c a y n e A v e W Wetland 1 46.28 AcPerennial Stream A 3337 Ln ft 9 1 8 3 5 6 7 4 2 SP-15 SP-19 SP-16 SP-17SP-18 Legend Study Area Sample Point Photo Point Delineated Wetland Type 1 / Seasonally Flooded Basin Type 2 / Fresh Wet Meadow Type 3 / Shallow Marsh Type 5 / Shallow Open Water Type 6 / Scrub Shrub Swamp Linear Feature Erosional Feature Perennial Stream Figure 6.2 Delineation Summary Map 0 200 400 US Feet Farmington Technology Park Tract Management Company, LP Imagery Courtesy of Dakota County (2023) ¯ South BranchVer m il l i o n R i v e r 2 2 0 t h S t W 2 2 5t h S t W 2 30 t h S t W 2 2 0 t h S t W C h i p p e n d a l e A v e W 1 2 Pa g e 2 6 6 o f 5 0 3 Appendix B Traffic Impact Analysis Page 267 of 503 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA Prepared for: Tract Management Company Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 11995 Single Tree Lane, Suite 225 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 AUGUST 2024 Page 268 of 503 Farmington Data Center – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA REPORT CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. __________________________ August 15, 2024 Jacob Rojer, P.E., PTOE Date License No. 56767 Page 269 of 503 3 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 4 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 4 Existing Roadways ........................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................... 5 Future Background Growth ............................................................................................................... 5 Pedestrians And Bicycles ................................................................................................................. 5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................................... 6 Site Access Points ............................................................................................................................ 6 Site Trip Generation.......................................................................................................................... 6 Site Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................................... 7 CAPACITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 8 Existing Year (2024) Conditions ........................................................................................................ 9 Opening Year (2029) No-Build Conditions ....................................................................................... 10 Design Year (2040) No-Build Conditions ......................................................................................... 12 Opening Year (2029) Scenario 1 Conditions ................................................................................... 14 Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 Conditions ...................................................................................... 16 Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 Conditions ................................................................................... 18 Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 Conditions ...................................................................................... 20 TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 22 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 23 APPENDIX............................................................................................................................................ 24 APPENDIX A. Exhibits B. Turning Movement Counts C. Site Layout Exhibit D. SimTraffic Analysis Results Page 270 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 4 INTRODUCTION Tract Management Company is proposing two development scenarios at the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of 225th Street and Biscayne Drive in Farmington, MN. Scenario 1 includes technology park which would be a total of 2,523,000 Square Feet (SF), with 929,000 SF proposed on the unoccupied site south of 225th Street and 1,594,000 SF proposed on the site which is currently occupied by the Fountain Valley Golf Club. Scenario 2 consists of 675 single family detached residential units and 74,000 SF of retail space in the northern portion. The southern portion of the site would remain undeveloped in this scenario. Exhibit 1 shows the proposed project location. All exhibits are included in Appendix A. EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS The proposed data center would be located on the southwest and northwest corners of 225th Street & Biscayne Drive in Farmington, Minnesota. The following intersections are included in the traffic analysis: • MN 3 (Chippendale Avenue) & MN 50 / CSAH 74 (220th Street) • MN 3 (Chippendale Avenue) & 225th Street • MN 3 (Chippendale Avenue) & CSAH 50 / Elm Street The study intersections listed above are shown in Exhibit 1. EXISTING ROADWAYS Access to the development will be provided via three access points, with two on 225th Street and one on MN 50. The following provides a detailed description of the surrounding roadways. MN 3 (Chippendale Avenue) is a north-south State Highway which is a two-lane undivided roadway south of MN 50 and a four-lane divided roadway at the intersection and to the north. The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan envisions MN 3 as a future Principal Arterial. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an annual average daily traffic (AADT ) of 7,400 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2022 north of MN 50 and 7,200 vpd in 2022 south of MN 50. The posted speed limit is 45 mph north of 225th Street and 55 mph south of 225th Street. MN 50 (220th Street) is an east-west undivided roadway. The roadway has one travel lane in each direction and, west of MN 3, has a shared left turn lane in the center. The roadway is a State Highway (MN 50) east of the MN 3 intersection and is under MnDOT jurisdiction there. West of MN 3, the road is under Dakota County jurisdiction and is a County State Aid Highway (CSAH 74). The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan envisions 220th Street as a future Principal Arterial, with a planned connection of CSAH 74 to 215th Street W in Lakeville. The MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application reports an AADT of 6,200 vpd in 2022 east of MN 3 and 4,700 vpd in 2022 west of MN 3. The posted speed limit on 220th Street is 30 mph west of MN 3, 35 mph between MN 3 and 10th Street and 55 mph about 400’ east of 10th Street. 225th Street is a two lane, undivided east-west roadway with no turn lanes provided. The roadway is unpaved east of Cambrian Way. 225th Street is a local road, and the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application has no traffic data for the roadway. The posted speed limit on 225th Street is 40 mph. County State Aid Highway 50 (Elm Street) is an east-west three-lane undivided roadway with one travel lane in each direction plus a shared left turn lane in the center west of MN 3. The Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan envisions the roadway as a future Other Arterial. According to Page 271 of 503 5 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the roadway has an AADT of 10,600 west of 7th Street, as of 2022. The posted speed limit on CSAH 50 is 30 mph. Biscayne Avenue is an unpaved local roadway which makes up the eastern boundary of the site. There is no posted speed limit. Exhibit 2 provides the existing intersection geometry and intersection control for the study intersections. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES To analyze the traffic operations at the study intersection, weekday peak period turning movement counts were collected at the three existing study intersections. Through counts were taken at the golf course access which is the location of the proposed primary access for the north site. Peak hour turning movements counts (TMCs) were collected on Thursday, March 7, 2024. Exhibit 3 provides a summary of the weekday AM and PM peak hour turning traffic volumes. The turning movement count data is provided in Appendix B. The network AM peak hour was determined to be 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM and the network PM peak hour was determined to be 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM. FUTURE BACKGROUND GROWTH Growth rates of the surrounding roadways were calculated using the projected 2040 Traffic Volumes shown in the City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan projected the volumes using a travel demand model, based on the most recent AADT data available at the time (2014-2015). The Existing AADT at the time of the report and the forecasted 2040 AADTs included in the report are shown below in Table 1. Table 1 – Background Growth Roadway Location Description Existing Year Existing AADT Grown Year Grown AADT Growth MN 3 South of Vermillion River Trail 2015 12,700 2040 20,200 1.9% MN 3 North of MN 50 2015 9,700 2040 12,800 1.1% 220th Street West of MN 3 2014 4,450 2040 6,700 1.6% MN 50 East of MN 3 2014 5,100 2040 7,700 1.6% Based on the data shown in Table 1, growth rates are relatively consistent for the surrounding roadways and a growth rate of 1.6% was therefore selected for all roadways within the network. Exhibit 4 shows the Opening Year No-Build (2029) turning movement volumes and Exhibit 5 shows the Design Year No-Build (2040) turning movement volumes. PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES Currently there is a sidewalk on the north side of 220th Street for the section west of MN 3, a sidewalk on the east side of MN 3 north of CSAH 50 and sidewalks on both sides of CSAH 50 / Elm Street. According to the City of Farmington 2040 Comprehensive Plan, city trails are proposed for MN 3, 220th Street, and 225th Street. The buildout of these trails is uncertain. Page 272 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE ACCESS POINTS The proposed Scenario 1 includes two parcels as part of the proposed development, with a north site and a south site which each have two access points. The north site will have one access on MN 50 and one access on 225th Street while the south site will have one access on 225th street and one access on Biscayne Avenue. The north parcel, located at the site of the existing golf course, would have its primary access located along MN 50 at the location of the golf course access. The secondary access point is located along 225th Street about 300 feet west of Biscayne Avenue. The south parcel, located south of 225th Street, would have its primary access point located along 225th Street, just under ½ a mile west of Biscayne Avenue. The secondary access is proposed along Biscayne Avenue, about 500 feet north of 230th Street. The majority of site traffic is anticipated to utilize the primary access points, so for the purposes of this study traffic is not assigned to the secondary access points. The proposed Scenario 1 site plan is included in Appendix C. Under the proposed Scenario 2 conditions, the access would be similar, with an access point along 220th Street providing access to the north portion and an access point along 225th Street. The proposed Scenario 2 site plan is included in Appendix C. SITE TRIP GENERATION The trip-generating potential of the proposed development was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition. Standard ITE trip rates were used to develop the anticipated total trips generated by the site. For this analysis, it was assumed that all site trips will be vehicle trips. It was assumed that all site trips would be new trips and no mode split reductions for trips via transit, bike or walking were used. To determine the trip generation of Scenario 1, the average rate for ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 160 (Data Center) was used to calculate the trip generation potential of the site. Average rate was applied based on guidance given in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The site was divided between the north data center and the south data center in order to split the trips between the two primary access points. Table 2 provides a summary of the number of trips anticipated to be generated during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. As shown, Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate 277 new trips during the AM peak hour (152 entering, 125 exiting) and 227 new trips during the PM peak hour (68 entering, 159 exiting). Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate 2,498 daily trips. Table 2 – Scenario 1 Trip Generation Land Use Description Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total North Data Center - LUC 160 1594 kSF 1,578 96 79 175 43 100 143 South Data Center - LUC 160 929 kSF 920 56 46 102 25 59 84 Total Site Trips 2,498 152 125 277 68 159 227 Page 273 of 503 7 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 To determine the trip generation of Scenario 2, the average rates for, LUC 210 (Single Family Detached Residential) and LUC 821 (Shopping Plaza) were used to calculate the trip generation potential of the site. Average rate was applied for each as it results in a higher (more conservative) trip generation estimate than the fitted curve does for these land uses. Table 3 provides a summary of the number of trips anticipated to be generated during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. As shown, Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 645 new trips during the AM peak hour (225 entering, 420 exiting) and 1,154 new trips during the PM peak hour (654 entering, 500 exiting). Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 13,116 weekday daily trips. Table 3 – Scenario 2 Trip Generation Land Use Description Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached - LUC 210 675 Units 6,365 118 354 472 400 235 635 Shopping Plaza - LUC 821 100 kSF 6,751 107 66 173 254 265 519 Total Site Trips 13,116 225 420 645 654 500 1,154 SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION The site trips were distributed to the adjacent roadways based on the current traffic patterns in the area and a general assessment of the major regional roadways surrounding the study area. In general, the following global trip distribution was assumed for Scenario 1: • 30% to/from the west on Elm Street • 25% to/from the east on MN 50 • 20% to/from the north on MN 3 • 15% to/from the south on MN 3 • 5% to/from the south on Biscayne Ave • 5% to/from the west on 220th Street Separate trip distributions were applied to the northern and southern portions of the technology park, with the trip generation applied separately to each respective distribution. For the north data center, the 5% of trips from Biscayne Avenue to the south are instead added onto MN 3 to the south (totaling 20%), with the global distributions being the same otherwise. The trip distribution for the north site is shown in Exhibit 6 and the site traffic is shown in Exhibit 7. The trip distribution for the south site is shown in Exhibit 8 and the site traffic is shown in Exhibit 9. The Opening Year (2029) Scenario 1 traffic volumes (shown in Exhibit 10) were developed by adding the site Traffic in Exhibit 9 to the Opening Year (2029) No-Build Traffic volumes in Exhibit 4. The Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 traffic volumes (shown in Exhibit 11) were developed by adding the site Traffic in Exhibit 9 to the Design Year (2040) No-Build Traffic volumes in Exhibit 5. A separate distribution was utilized for Scenario 2 since the different land uses are anticipated to see different traffic patterns. In general, the following global distribution was assumed for Scenario 2: • 30% to/from the west on Elm Street Page 274 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 8 • 25% to/from the east on MN 50 • 20% to/from the north on MN 3 • 15% to/from the south on MN 3 • 5% to/from the south on Biscayne Ave • 5% to/from the west on 220th Street The trip distribution for Scenario 2 site is shown in Exhibit 12 and the site traffic is shown in Exhibit 13. The trip distribution for the south site is shown in Exhibit 8 and the site traffic is shown in Exhibit 9. The Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 traffic volumes (shown in Exhibit 14) were developed by adding the site Traffic in Exhibit 13 to the Opening Year (2029) No-Build Traffic volumes in Exhibit 4. The Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 traffic volumes (shown in Exhibit 15) were developed by adding the site Traffic in Exhibit 13 to the Design Year (2040) No-Build Traffic volumes in Exhibit 5. CAPACITY ANALYSIS A capacity analysis was performed to quantify the delay and level of service at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The capacity analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic. Existing signal timings used in the analysis were obtained from MnDOT. The capacity of an intersection quantifies its ability to accommodate traffic volumes and is measured in average delay per vehicle. It is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS) which ranges from A to F, with LOS A as the highest (best traffic flow and least delay), LOS E as saturated or at-capacity conditions, and LOS F as the lowest (oversaturated conditions). The LOS grades shown below, which are provided in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), quantify and categorize the driver’s discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and travel times experienced as a result of intersection control and the resulting traffic queuing. A detailed description of each LOS rating can be found in Table 4. The range of control delay for each rating (as detailed in the HCM) is also shown in Table 2. Because signalized intersections are expected to carry a larger volume of vehicles and stopping is required during red time, higher delays are tolerated for the corresponding LOS ratings. Page 275 of 503 9 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 Table 4 – Level of Service Information Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description A 0-10 (Unsignalized); 0-10 (Signalized) Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within traffic stream. B >10-15 (Unsignalized); >10-20 (Signalized) Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream. C >15-25 (Unsignalized); >20-35 (Signalized) Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B; formation of queues contributes to lower average travel speeds. D >25-35 (Unsignalized); >35-55 (Signalized) Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow; average travel speeds continue to decrease. E >35-50 (Unsignalized); >55-80 (Signalized) High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed. F >50 (Unsignalized); >80 (Signalized) Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly restricted traffic flow. Traffic models for each scenario were developed using Synchro/SimTraffic, and the delay and queueing were evaluated for each scenario. The scenarios that were analyzed are as follows: • Existing Year (2024) • Opening Year (2029) No-Build Conditions • Opening Year (2029) Completed Build Conditions • Design Year (2040) No-Build Conditions • Design Year (2040) Build Conditions EXISTING YEAR (2024 ) CONDITIONS A capacity analysis was performed for Existing Year (2024) conditions in order to develop baseline operating conditions for the current year. The analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic. The three (3) study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry and intersection control as summarized in Exhibit 2. Signal timings were obtained from MnDOT. The traffic volumes are provided in Exhibit 3. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 5. Page 276 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 10 Table 5 – Existing Year (2024) Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection/ Worst Side Street Movement Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 32.8 C 26.5 C 7.7 A 12.6 B WB 8.8 A 22.3 C 3.6 A NB 13.6 B 6.5 A - - SB 10.9 B 11.7 B 5.8 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 35.7 D 29.3 C 12.0 B 11.9 B WB 34.2 C 27.7 C 6.3 A NB 7.5 A 7.7 A 1.3 A SB 9.1 A 5.3 A 2.3 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 3.8 A WB 3.8 A - - 2.6 A NB - - 0.3 A 0.0 A SB 1.8 A 0.8 A - - PM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 32.2 C 26.8 C 11.2 B 16.4 B WB 24.3 C 21.5 C 3.1 A NB 17.5 B 10.5 B 2.9 A SB 12.0 B 17.3 B 5.6 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 36.5 D - - 17.6 B 12.1 B WB 36.2 D 33.4 C 7.5 A NB 7.5 A 8.9 A 1.4 A SB 8.3 A 3.7 A 1.5 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 10.5 B WB 10.5 B - - 6.0 A NB - - 0.4 A 0.3 A SB 4.8 A 0.9 A - - Based on the Existing Year (2024) capacity analysis, the study intersections currently operate at LOS B or better in the AM and PM peak hour. All individual movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. The SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix D. OPENING YEAR (2029 ) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS A capacity analysis was performed for Opening Year (2029) No-Build conditions in order to develop baseline operating conditions for the opening year. The analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic. Page 277 of 503 11 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 The three study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry, intersection control, and signal timings, as summarized in Exhibit 2. The traffic volumes are provided in Exhibit 4. The results are provided in Table 6. Table 6 – Opening Year (2029) No-Build Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection/ Worst Side Street Movement Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 33.0 C 24.9 C 8.5 A 13.6 B WB - - 24.9 C 3.7 A NB 15.7 B 6.8 A - - SB 10.9 B 13.7 B 6.6 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 33.1 C 27.8 C 11.1 B 12.6 B WB 32.7 C 28.8 C 6.5 A NB 8.7 A 9.6 A 1.4 A SB 10.6 B 7.2 A 2.3 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 5.2 A WB 5.2 A - - 2.2 A NB - - 0.3 A - - SB 1.8 A 0.8 A - - PM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 31.9 C 24.3 C 12.9 B 16.6 B WB 17.0 B 19.4 B 3.8 A NB 17.9 B 11.1 B 1.1 A SB 13.6 B 17.7 B 5.8 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 35.8 D - - 17.0 B 13.0 B WB 36.3 D 33.1 C 7.5 A NB 8.5 A 10.9 B 1.4 A SB 11.3 B 4.6 A 1.9 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 7.8 A WB 7.8 A - - 6.4 A NB - - 0.3 A 0.4 A SB 4.7 A 1.1 A - - With the addition of background traffic growth, the study area intersections are projected to experience minimal change in delay with the majority of movements and approaches projected to operate at the same LOS as compared to existing conditions. All intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better in the AM and PM peak hours. Page 278 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 12 All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. The SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix D DESIGN YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD CONDITIONS A capacity analysis was performed for Design Year (2040) No-Build conditions in order to develop baseline operating conditions for the design year. The three study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry, intersection control, and signal timings, as summarized in Exhibit 2. The traffic volumes are provided in Exhibit 5. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 7. Page 279 of 503 13 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 Table 7 – Design Year (2040) No-Build Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall Intersection/ Worst Side Street Movement Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 33.2 C 22.4 C 8.7 A 15.3 B WB 26.7 C 22.3 C 3.8 A NB 18.9 B 8.4 A - - SB 9.0 A 16.7 B 7.5 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 32.8 C 24.5 C 11.0 B 14.4 B WB 28.5 C 27.2 C 6.8 A NB 9.8 A 12.1 B 1.4 A SB 13.8 B 12.1 B 3.6 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 7.0 A WB 7.0 A - - 2.6 A NB - - 0.4 A - - SB 1.6 A 1.0 A - - PM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 33.0 C 28.4 C 13.7 B 18.6 B WB 27.7 C 23.2 C 3.3 A NB 22.6 C 13.5 B 0.3 A SB 14.2 B 20.2 C 6.9 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 36.5 D - - 17.1 B 14.9 B WB 33.0 C 32.4 C 7.8 A NB 11.4 B 14.3 B 1.5 A SB 13.7 B 7.8 A 3.1 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 6.6 A WB 6.6 A - - 6.4 A NB - - 0.4 A 0.0 A SB 5.4 A 1.4 A - - With additional background traffic growth, the study area intersections are projected to experience some change in delay, with few movements projected to operate at a lower LOS as compared to Opening Year (2029) No-Build Conditions. All intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All individual movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix D. All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. Page 280 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 14 OPENING YEAR (2029) SCENARIO 1 CONDITIONS Opening Year (2029) Scenario 1 conditions were analyzed to determine any traffic impacts from the addition of the site traffic to the study intersections. The three study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry, intersection control, and signal timings, as summarized in Exhibit 2. The site accesses were modeled as side street stop control and no turn lanes were initially assumed for the analysis. Opening Year (2029) Scenario 1 turning movement volumes are shown in Exhibit 10. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 8. Page 281 of 503 15 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 Table 8 – Opening Year (2029) Scenario 1 Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall/Worst Movement Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 32.0 C 31.9 C 10.2 B 14.9 B WB - - 21.6 C 3.7 A NB 18.8 B 8.4 A - - SB 8.3 A 15.8 B 7.4 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 32.5 C 22.7 C 9.5 A 13.7 B WB 28.8 C 28.5 C 7.5 A NB 9.5 A 13.1 B 1.5 A SB 14.4 B 9.4 A 3.6 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 8.0 A WB 8.0 A - - 4.0 A NB - - 0.7 A 0.2 A SB 2.3 A 1.4 A - - 220th Street & North Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - 3.7 A 7.3 A WB 3.3 A 0.9 A - - NB 7.3 A - - 3.5 A SB - - - - - - 225th Street & South Access Side Street Stop EB - - 8.2 A 3.0 A 8.2 A WB 6.6 A 5.8 A - - NB 6.2 A - - 2.3 A SB - - - - - - PM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 32.9 C 29.0 C 13.6 B 17.8 B WB 37.5 D 22.7 C 3.6 A NB 22.3 C 11.2 B 2.0 A SB 13.5 B 18.5 B 6.7 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 35.3 D 30.7 C 14.9 B 13.2 B WB 32.8 C 35.3 D 8.5 A NB 9.4 A 11.8 B 1.5 A SB 12.7 B 5.8 A 2.1 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 10.9 B WB 10.9 B 1.0 A 8.7 A NB - - 0.4 A 0.4 A SB 5.1 A 1.5 A - - 220th Street & North Access Side Street Stop EB - - 5.2 A 4.9 A 8.9 A WB 5.3 A 1.0 A - - NB 8.9 A - - 7.0 A SB - - - - - - 225th Street & South Access Side Street Stop EB - - 7.4 A 5.0 A 7.4 A WB - - 5.3 A - - NB 6.3 A - - 3.7 A SB - - - - - - Page 282 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 16 With the addition of site-generated traffic, the study area intersections are projected to have minimal change in delay with the majority of movements and approaches projected to operate at the same LOS as compared to Opening Year (2029) No-Build Conditions. All intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours, and all individual movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. The SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix D. All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 CONDITIONS Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 conditions were analyzed to determine any traffic impacts from the addition of the site traffic to the study intersections in the long-term. The three study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry, intersection control, and signal timings, as summarized in Exhibit 2. The site accesses were modeled as side street stop control and no turn lanes were initially assumed for the analysis. Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 traffic volumes were developed from the addition of the Design Year (2040) No-Build volumes in Exhibit 5 and the Scenario 1 site trips in Exhibits 7 and 9. The Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 turning movement volumes are shown in Exhibit 11. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 9. Page 283 of 503 17 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 Table 9 – Design Year (2040) Scenario 1 Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall/Worst Movement Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 35.2 D 21.6 C 9.7 A 19.7 B WB 24.1 C 20.5 C 3.3 A NB 28.2 C 12.0 B - - SB 14.4 B 21.9 C 14.8 B MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 30.2 C 23.5 C 12.3 B 16.6 B WB 30.0 C 29.0 C 8.4 A NB 11.4 B 16.9 B 1.6 A SB 19.2 B 15.6 B 6.5 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 8.9 A WB 8.9 A - - 4.6 A NB - - 0.9 A 0.3 A SB 3.1 A 1.9 A - - 220th Street & North Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - 5.1 A 7.6 A WB 4.2 A 1.1 A - - NB 7.6 A - - 3.8 A SB - - - - - - 225th Street & South Access Side Street Stop EB - - 6.9 A 2.5 A 12.5 B WB 12.5 B 6.2 A - - NB 7.2 A - - 3.4 A SB - - - - - - PM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 34.4 C 24.3 C 14.2 B 23.0 C WB 17.5 B 19.0 B 4.0 A NB 32.8 C 19.0 B 2.7 A SB 18.4 B 27.8 C 10.4 B MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 28.5 C 26.0 C 16.0 B 16.6 B WB 37.3 D 31.9 C 8.9 A NB 12.9 B 18.9 B 1.8 A SB 21.5 C 10.5 B 4.1 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 12.3 B WB 12.3 B 1.1 A 9.4 A NB - - 0.5 A 0.4 A SB 5.9 A 1.8 A - - 220th Street & North Access Side Street Stop EB - - 5.4 A 5.5 A 9.2 A WB 6.1 A 1.3 A - - NB 9.2 A - - 7.2 A SB - - - - - - 225th Street & South Access Side Street Stop EB - - 7.7 A 5.4 A 7.7 A WB - - 6.0 A - - NB 6.2 A - - 2.9 A SB - - - - - - Page 284 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 18 With additional site traffic and background traffic growth, the study area intersections are projected to experience minimal change in delay, with most of movements projected to operate at the same LOS as t he Opening Year (2029) Build Conditions. All intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better in the AM and PM peak hours and all individual movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. The proposed Scenario 1 Geometry and Intersection Control is shown in Exhibit 16. The SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix D. All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. OPENING YEAR (2029 ) SCENARIO 2 CONDITIONS Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 conditions were analyzed to determine any traffic impacts from the addition of the site traffic to the study intersections. The three study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry and intersection control, as summarized in Exhibit 2. The site accesses were modeled as side street stop control with one approach lane (except for the access along 220th Street which was assumed to have 2 approach lanes due to the anticipated traffic levels) and no turn lanes were initially assumed for the analysis. Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 turning movement volumes were developed by adding the site trips in Exhibit 13 to the Opening Year (2029) No-Build turning movement volumes in Exhibit 4. The Opening Year (2029) Build turning movement volumes are shown in Exhibit 14. Signal timings were optimized at key study area intersections. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 10. Page 285 of 503 19 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 Table 10 – Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall/Worst Movement Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 33.6 C 35.2 D 10.3 B 16.2 B WB - - 22.3 C 4.0 A NB 21.7 C 9.0 A - - SB 11.0 B 18.1 B 9.0 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 29.5 C 21.4 C 10.5 B 14.4 B WB 26.0 C 26.7 C 9.5 A NB 11.3 B 14.0 B 1.4 A SB 17.8 B 11.7 B 4.5 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 6.9 A WB 6.9 A - - 4.3 A NB - - 0.9 A 0.1 A SB 2.4 A 1.5 A - - 220th Street & North Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - 4.9 A 10.1 B WB 3.8 A 2.0 A - - NB 10.1 B - - 4.2 A SB - - - - - - 225th Street & South Access Side Street Stop EB 1.6 A 1.4 A - - 3.2 A WB - - 0.4 A - - NB - - - - - - SB - - - - 3.2 A PM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 32.8 C 25.1 C 16.4 B 22.6 C WB 56.0 E 18.2 B 3.6 A NB 31.3 C 18.4 B 6.5 A SB 17.0 B 27.6 C 9.5 A MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 32.4 C 28.7 C 17.3 B 18.4 B WB 37.9 D 34.4 C 9.9 A NB 12.4 B 22.7 C 1.8 A SB 25.7 C 10.0 A 3.4 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 14.6 B WB 14.6 B 0.2 A 9.4 A NB - - 0.5 A 0.6 A SB 5.9 A 2.4 A - - 220th Street & North Access Side Street Stop EB - - 6.9 A 7.3 A 33.3 D WB 8.1 A 4.5 A - - NB 33.3 D - - 8.0 A SB - - - - - - 225th Street & South Access Side Street Stop EB - - 4.3 A 0.2 A 4.3 A WB - - 3.3 A - - NB 4.3 A - - - - SB - - - - - - Page 286 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 20 With the addition of Scenario 2 traffic, the study area intersections are projected to have some change in delay. All intersections and movements are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better, with the exception of the westbound left turn movement at MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm Street). Because movement is very minor, with only three (3) westbound left turns anticipated during the PM peak hour, the anticipated level of operations (LOS E) is not concerning. The 95th percentile queueing results were reviewed at the intersections and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays except for the southbound left turn queues at MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) which is anticipated to be at its queueing capacity during the PM peak hour. The SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix D. DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 2 CONDITIONS Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 conditions were analyzed to determine any traffic impacts from the addition of the site traffic to the study intersections in the long-term. The three study intersections were modeled with the existing geometry and intersection control, as summarized in Exhibit 2. The site accesses were modeled as side street stop control with one approach lane (except for the access along 220th Street which was assumed to have 2 approach lanes due to the anticipated traffic levels) and no turn lanes were initially assumed for the analysis. The Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 traffic volumes were developed from the addition of the Design Year (2040) No-Build volumes in Exhibit 5 and the Scenario 2 Site Trips in Exhibit 13. The Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 turning movement volumes are shown in Exhibit 15. The site accesses were modeled as side street stop control. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 11. Page 287 of 503 21 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 Table 11 – Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Intersection Control Approach Operations by Movement Overall/Worst Movement Left Through Right Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS Delay (sec/veh) LOS AM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 35.1 D 21.2 C 9.9 A 19.0 B WB - - 22.4 C 3.9 A NB 29.0 C 10.9 B - - SB 11.9 B 21.8 C 11.7 B MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 28.5 C 23.9 C 11.4 B 16.3 B WB 30.6 C 28.3 C 9.9 A NB 12.4 B 17.2 B 1.6 A SB 19.8 B 14.8 B 6.2 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 8.4 A WB 8.4 A - - 4.9 A NB - - 1.0 A 0.1 A SB 2.9 A 1.8 A - - 220th Street & North Access Side Street Stop EB - - - - 5.0 A 12.5 B WB 5.0 A 1.2 A - - NB 12.5 B - - 4.8 A SB - - - - - - 225th Street & South Access Side Street Stop EB 1.8 A 1.1 A - - 3.2 A WB - - 0.3 A - - NB - - - - - - SB - - - - 3.2 A PM Peak Hour MN 3 & CR 50 (Elm St) Signal EB 33.7 C 27.0 C 16.7 B 26.0 C WB 16.6 B 17.0 B 3.8 A NB 39.2 D 21.5 C - - SB 2.6 A 20.4 C 34.1 C MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Signal EB 31.7 C 26.9 C 16.4 B 20.7 C WB 33.9 C 34.1 C 9.9 A NB 14.2 B 27.2 C 1.7 A SB 30.4 C 14.3 B 5.9 A MN 3 & 225th Street Side Street Stop EB - - - - - - 15.1 C WB 15.1 C 0.5 A 10.2 B NB - - 0.6 A 0.5 A SB 6.7 A 2.8 A - - 220th Street & North Access Side Street Stop EB - - 7.1 A 7.3 A 34.9 D WB 8.0 A 1.9 A - - NB 34.9 D - - 8.9 A SB - - - - - - 225th Street & South Access Side Street Stop EB 5.9 A 3.9 A - - 5.9 A WB - - 0.2 A - - NB - - - - - - SB - - - - 3.3 A Page 288 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 22 With additional site traffic and background traffic growth, the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptably, with all intersections and individual movements anticipated to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The SimTraffic reports are provided in Appendix D. The 95th percentile queueing results, and the following movements are anticipated to have queues at or near their respective storage capacities: • Southbound right at MN 3 & CSAH 50 (AM & PM peak hour) • Northbound left at MN 3 & CSAH 50 (PM peak hour) • Southbound left at MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) Based on the results, the southbound right turn lane at MN 3 & CSAH 50 should be extended to a length of at least 200’ in order to provide sufficient storage length for the movement during all peak hours. The northbound left turn at the same intersection should be extended to a length of at least 400’ to provide sufficient storage, while the southbound left at MN 3 & MN 50 (220th Street) should be extended to at least 350’ in length. The proposed Scenario 2 Geometry and Intersection Control is shown in Exhibit 17. TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS MnDOT provides guidance on the need for left-turn and right-turn lanes based on the major road AADT and the cross street AADT. Table 12 comes directly out of Chapter 3 of the MnDOT Access Management Manual, where Figure 3.40 provides a warrant for left-turn lanes and Figure 3.41 provides a warrant for right-turn lanes. Table 12 – MnDOT Turn Lane Warrants Currently, MN 50 has an AADT of 5,500 vehicles per day (vpd), east of the proposed access point (as of 2022). With the addition of the 1,578 daily site trips from Scenario 1, the AADT is expected to exceed 6,500 vpd in the Opening Year (2029) Build Scenario. Since the driveway is anticipated to have over one thousand Page 289 of 503 23 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 daily trips, the access point along MN 50 is anticipated to meet the MnDOT turn lane warrants for eastbound right and westbound left turn lanes. The AADT along MN 3 south of 225th Street is about 4,800 vpd. With the addition of site traffic and background growth at a 1.6% annual rate, the roadway is anticipated to exceed 6,500 vpd in the Opening Year (2029) Scenario 1 build conditions. With site traffic alone accounting for over 400 daily trips along the cross street, the intersection of MN 3 & 225th Street is anticipated to meet the MnDOT warrants for northbound right and southbound left turn lanes. With both cross-street volumes anticipated to be well over 1,500 vpd under Scenario 2 conditions, all turn lane warrants for the access points will be met in the Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 build conditions. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Tract Management Company is proposing two development scenarios for the area near the intersection of 225th Street and Biscayne Drive in Farmington, MN. Scenario 1 consists of Technology Park which would be a total of 2,523,000 SF, with 929,000 SF proposed on the unoccupied site south of 225th Street and 1,594,000 SF proposed on the site which is currently occupied by the Fountain Valley Golf Club. Scenario 2 includes 920,000 SF of industrial park, along with 74,000 SF of retail space and 675 single family detached housing units. Under Scenario 1, the north portion of the technology park, located at the site of the existing golf course, would have its primary access located along MN 50 at the location of the golf course access. The secondary access point is located along 225th Street, at the currently unpaved section about 300’ west of Biscayne Avenue. The south technology park, located south of 225th Street, would have its primary access point located along 225th Street, just under ½ a mile west of Biscayne Avenue. The secondary access is proposed along Biscayne Avenue, about 500’ north of 230th Street. Under scenario 2, the north portion of the site would be mixed use with retail and residential land, while the southern portion would not be developed. The retail and residential areas would have the same access along 220th Street as Scenario 1 as well as an access point along 225th Street. The trip generation of Scenario 1 was evaluated based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition by applying ITE Land Use Code 160 (Data Center). Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate a total of 277 trips during the AM peak hour (152 entering 125 exiting) and 227 trips during the PM peak hour (68 entering 159 exiting). The trip generation of Scenario 2 was evaluated based on data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition by applying LUC 210 (Single Family Detached Residential) and LUC 821 (Shopping Plaza). Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate a total of 645 new trips during the AM peak hour (225 entering, 420 exiting) and 1,154 new trips during the PM peak hour (654 entering, 500 exiting). Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 13,116 weekday trips. A capacity analysis was performed for Existing Year (2024), Opening Year (2029) No-Build, Opening Year (2029) Scenario 1, Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2, Design Year (2040) No-Build, Design Year (2040) Scenario 1, and Design Year (2040) Scenario 2. In all conditions the study intersections are anticipated to operate acceptably. Some minor queueing issues are anticipated under scenario 2 conditions which will require mitigation. Page 290 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ August 2024 24 Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the proposed access point along MN 50 and the intersection of MN 3 & 225th Street. It was found that eastbound right and westbound left turn lanes will likely be warranted in the Opening Year (2029) Scenario 1 conditions at the site access along MN 50, along with northbound right and southbound left turn lanes at the intersection of MN 3 & 225th Street. The same was found to be true for the Scenario 2 conditions. The recommended mitigation measures under Scenario 1 conditions (as shown in Exhibit 16) are: • Install side street stop control at the site accesses. • Install a westbound left turn lane at the north access (on MN 50). • Install a southbound left turn lane and northbound right turn lane at the intersection of MN 3 & 225th Street. • Optimize signal timings at adjacent intersections. The recommended mitigation measures under Scenario 2 conditions (as shown in Exhibit 17) are: • Install side street stop control at the site accesses. • Install a westbound left turn lane at the north access (on MN 50). • Install a southbound left turn lane and northbound right turn lane at the intersection of MN 3 & 225th Street. • Optimize signal timings at all adjacent intersections. • Extend the northbound left turn lane at MN 3 & CSAH 50 to 400’ (currently 300’). • Extend the southbound right turn lane at MN 3 & CSAH 50 to 200’ (currently 150’). • Extend the southbound left turn lane at MN 3 & MN 50 to 350’ (currently 275’) APPENDIX A. Exhibits B. Turning Movement Counts C. Site Layout Exhibit D. SimTraffic Analysis Results Page 291 of 503 25 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ July 2024 A. Exhibits Page 292 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP LEGEND Study Intersection Proposed Primary Access Proposed Secondary Access Proposed Site Boundary Page 293 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 2 EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Stop Control Signal Control Page 294 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 3 EXISTING (2024) TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Page 295 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 4 OPENING YEAR (2029) NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Page 296 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 5 DESIGN YEAR (2040) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Page 297 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 6 SCENARIO 1 - NORTH DATA CENTER SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 20% 25% 5% 20% LEGEND Study Intersection Trip Assignment Primary Access Point Secondary/Emergency Access Data Center North Location 30% Page 298 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 7 SCENARIO 1 - NORTH DATA CENTER SITE TRIPS LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Proposed Primary Access Point Proposed Site Boundary Secondary/Emergency Acces Page 299 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 8 SCENARIO 1 - SOUTH DATA CENTER SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 20% 25% 5% 5% 15% LEGEND Study Intersection Trip Assignment Primary Access Point Secondary/Emergency Access Data Center South Location 30% Page 300 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 9 SCNEARIO 1 - SOUTH DATA CENTER SITE TRIPS 20% 25% 5% 5% 15% 30% LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hour Site Trips Proposed Primary Access Point South Data Center Location Secondary/Emergency Acces Page 301 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 10 OPENING YEAR (2029) SCENARIO 1 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Proposed Access Point Proposed Site Boundary Thru Volumes Not Known Page 302 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 11 HORIZON YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 1 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Proposed Access Point Proposed Site Boundary Thru Volumes Not Known Page 303 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 12 SCENARIO 2 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRBUTION LEGEND Study Intersection Site Traffic Distribution Primary Access Point Development Location 25% 30% 10% 10% 25% Page 304 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 13 SCNEARIO 2 PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hour Site Trips Proposed Access Point Development Location Page 305 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY Thru Volumes Not Known EXHIBIT 14 OPENING YEAR (2029) SCENARIO 2 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Proposed Access Point Proposed Site Boundary Page 306 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 15 DESIGN YEAR (2040) SCENARIO 2 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Proposed Access Point Proposed Site Boundary Thru Volumes Not Known Page 307 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 16 PROPOSED SCENARIO 1 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Stop Control Signal Control Lane Use Change Page 308 of 503 NOT TO SCALE 74 COUNTY 50 COUNTY EXHIBIT 17 PROPOSED SCENARIO 2 GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL LEGEND Study Intersection AM (PM) Peak Hourly Traffic Stop Control Signal Control Lane Use Change Turn Lane Extension Page 309 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ July 2024 B. Turning Movement Counts Page 310 of 503 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & 225th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time 225th Street TH 3 TH 3 Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 1 5 6 33 0 33 2 38 40 79 7:15 AM 2 4 6 55 0 55 2 34 36 97 7:30 AM 2 4 6 50 0 50 2 44 46 102 7:45 AM 0 16 16 47 0 47 5 34 39 102 Hourly Total 5 29 34 185 0 185 11 150 161 380 8:00 AM 1 4 5 34 0 34 7 33 40 79 8:15 AM 1 3 4 36 2 38 4 28 32 74 8:30 AM 0 6 6 29 0 29 2 31 33 68 8:45 AM 0 3 3 30 1 31 2 13 15 49 Hourly Total 2 16 18 129 3 132 15 105 120 270 *** BREAK ***---------- 4:00 PM 0 3 3 42 4 46 7 56 63 112 4:15 PM 0 2 2 47 0 47 6 65 71 120 4:30 PM 0 9 9 59 0 59 8 51 59 127 4:45 PM 0 4 4 47 2 49 7 41 48 101 Hourly Total 0 18 18 195 6 201 28 213 241 460 5:00 PM 1 3 4 53 0 53 3 48 51 108 5:15 PM 0 5 5 58 0 58 8 41 49 112 5:30 PM 0 4 4 39 0 39 5 25 30 73 5:45 PM 0 7 7 28 0 28 5 33 38 73 Hourly Total 1 19 20 178 0 178 21 147 168 366 Grand Total 8 82 90 687 9 696 75 615 690 1476 Approach %8.9 91.1 -98.7 1.3 -10.9 89.1 -- Total %0.5 5.6 6.1 46.5 0.6 47.2 5.1 41.7 46.7 - Lights 7 80 87 661 8 669 70 588 658 1414 % Lights 87.5 97.6 96.7 96.2 88.9 96.1 93.3 95.6 95.4 95.8 Mediums 1 2 3 16 1 17 5 17 22 42 % Mediums 12.5 2.4 3.3 2.3 11.1 2.4 6.7 2.8 3.2 2.8 Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 10 20 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.6 1.4 1.4Pa g e 3 1 1 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & 225th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 2 03/07/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/07/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 741 658 1399 18 22 40 10 10 20 769 690 1459 588 70 17 5 10 0 615 75 T L 84 0 6 78 Ou t 90 0 3 87 In 17 4 0 9 16 5 To t a l 22 5 t h S t r e e t [ W B ] R 82 0 2 80 L 8 0 1 7 595 669 1264 18 17 35 10 10 20 623 696 1319 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] T R 661 8 16 1 10 0 687 9 Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 1 2 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & 225th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM) Start Time 225th Street TH 3 TH 3 Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 1 5 6 33 0 33 2 38 40 79 7:15 AM 2 4 6 55 0 55 2 34 36 97 7:30 AM 2 4 6 50 0 50 2 44 46 102 7:45 AM 0 16 16 47 0 47 5 34 39 102 Total 5 29 34 185 0 185 11 150 161 380 Approach %14.7 85.3 -100.0 0.0 -6.8 93.2 -- Total %1.3 7.6 8.9 48.7 0.0 48.7 2.9 39.5 42.4 - PHF 0.625 0.453 0.531 0.841 0.000 0.841 0.550 0.852 0.875 0.931 Lights 4 28 32 178 0 178 9 141 150 360 % Lights 80.0 96.6 94.1 96.2 -96.2 81.8 94.0 93.2 94.7 Mediums 1 1 2 5 0 5 2 7 9 16 % Mediums 20.0 3.4 5.9 2.7 -2.7 18.2 4.7 5.6 4.2 Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 4 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 -1.1 0.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 Pa g e 3 1 3 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & 225th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/07/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/07/2024 8:00 AM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 206 150 356 6 9 15 2 2 4 214 161 375 141 9 7 2 2 0 150 11 T L 11 0 2 9 Ou t 34 0 2 32 In 45 0 4 41 To t a l 22 5 t h S t r e e t [ W B ] R 29 0 1 28 L 5 0 1 4 145 178 323 8 5 13 2 2 4 155 185 340 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] T R 178 0 5 0 2 0 185 0 Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM) Pa g e 3 1 4 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & 225th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM) Start Time 225th Street TH 3 TH 3 Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Right App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Thru App. Total Int. Total 4:00 PM 0 3 3 42 4 46 7 56 63 112 4:15 PM 0 2 2 47 0 47 6 65 71 120 4:30 PM 0 9 9 59 0 59 8 51 59 127 4:45 PM 0 4 4 47 2 49 7 41 48 101 Total 0 18 18 195 6 201 28 213 241 460 Approach %0.0 100.0 -97.0 3.0 -11.6 88.4 -- Total %0.0 3.9 3.9 42.4 1.3 43.7 6.1 46.3 52.4 - PHF 0.000 0.500 0.500 0.826 0.375 0.852 0.875 0.819 0.849 0.906 Lights 0 17 17 189 6 195 28 206 234 446 % Lights -94.4 94.4 96.9 100.0 97.0 100.0 96.7 97.1 97.0 Mediums 0 1 1 4 0 4 0 4 4 9 % Mediums -5.6 5.6 2.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.9 1.7 2.0 Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 3 5 % Articulated Trucks -0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 1.1 Pa g e 3 1 5 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & 225th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/07/2024 4:00 PMEnding At03/07/2024 5:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated Trucks TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 206 234 440 5 4 9 2 3 5 213 241 454 206 28 4 0 3 0 213 28 T L 34 0 0 34 Ou t 18 0 1 17 In 52 0 1 51 To t a l 22 5 t h S t r e e t [ W B ] R 18 0 1 17 L 0 0 0 0 206 195 401 4 4 8 3 2 5 213 201 414 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] T R 189 6 4 0 2 0 195 6 Fa k e A p p r o a c h [ E B ] To t a l 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 Ou t 0 0 0 0 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) Pa g e 3 1 6 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & Elm StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time Elm St Elm St TH 3 TH 3 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 40 1 12 0 53 0 12 8 1 20 36 66 0 0 102 0 42 40 0 82 257 7:15 AM 32 2 20 1 54 0 9 7 0 16 60 75 0 0 135 1 50 70 0 121 326 7:30 AM 41 2 32 0 75 0 12 14 0 26 54 64 0 1 118 3 49 89 0 141 360 7:45 AM 53 7 22 0 82 0 16 1 0 17 56 52 0 0 108 0 58 81 0 139 346 Hourly Total 166 12 86 1 264 0 49 30 1 79 206 257 0 1 463 4 199 280 0 483 1289 8:00 AM 52 5 26 0 83 1 8 5 0 14 41 58 0 0 99 3 53 61 0 117 313 8:15 AM 45 6 27 0 78 0 8 5 0 13 49 62 1 1 112 1 51 71 0 123 326 8:30 AM 61 7 24 1 92 0 7 4 0 11 37 40 0 0 77 2 37 63 0 102 282 8:45 AM 50 6 25 0 81 0 5 3 0 8 32 41 0 0 73 2 36 39 0 77 239 Hourly Total 208 24 102 1 334 1 28 17 0 46 159 201 1 1 361 8 177 234 0 419 1160 *** BREAK ***--------------------- 4:00 PM 72 2 49 0 123 0 14 3 0 17 22 84 1 0 107 4 63 56 1 123 370 4:15 PM 60 5 43 0 108 0 8 3 0 11 30 59 0 1 89 5 89 60 1 154 362 4:30 PM 84 5 55 0 144 0 2 6 0 8 50 82 1 0 133 3 63 64 0 130 415 4:45 PM 68 17 41 0 126 0 4 7 0 11 36 84 0 0 120 9 51 57 0 117 374 Hourly Total 284 29 188 0 501 0 28 19 0 47 138 309 2 1 449 21 266 237 2 524 1521 5:00 PM 68 8 37 0 113 3 10 4 0 17 40 66 0 0 106 9 88 67 1 164 400 5:15 PM 77 11 50 0 138 0 11 8 1 19 50 75 0 0 125 4 72 63 1 139 421 5:30 PM 50 17 47 0 114 0 4 2 0 6 49 64 0 0 113 6 59 48 0 113 346 5:45 PM 63 4 36 0 103 0 4 5 0 9 38 59 1 0 98 5 60 43 0 108 318 Hourly Total 258 40 170 0 468 3 29 19 1 51 177 264 1 0 442 24 279 221 2 524 1485 Grand Total 916 105 546 2 1567 4 134 85 2 223 680 1031 4 3 1715 57 921 972 4 1950 5455 Approach % 58.5 6.7 34.8 -- 1.8 60.1 38.1 -- 39.7 60.1 0.2 -- 2.9 47.2 49.8 --- Total %16.8 1.9 10.0 -28.7 0.1 2.5 1.6 -4.1 12.5 18.9 0.1 -31.4 1.0 16.9 17.8 -35.7 - Lights 886 105 516 -1507 3 133 82 -218 645 1000 4 -1649 57 876 923 -1856 5230 % Lights 96.7 100.0 94.5 -96.2 75.0 99.3 96.5 -97.8 94.9 97.0 100.0 -96.2 100.0 95.1 95.0 -95.2 95.9 Mediums 27 0 15 -42 1 1 3 -5 12 22 0 -34 0 29 33 -62 143 % Mediums 2.9 0.0 2.7 -2.7 25.0 0.7 3.5 -2.2 1.8 2.1 0.0 -2.0 0.0 3.1 3.4 -3.2 2.6 Articulated Trucks 3 0 15 -18 0 0 0 -0 23 9 0 -32 0 16 16 -32 82 % Articulated Trucks 0.3 0.0 2.7 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 3.4 0.9 0.0 -1.9 0.0 1.7 1.6 -1.6 1.5 Pedestrians ---2 ----2 ----3 ----4 -- % Pedestrians ---100.0 ----100.0 ----100.0 ----100.0 -- Pa g e 3 1 7 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & Elm StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 2 03/07/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/07/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 1968 1856 3824 52 62 114 12 32 44 0 0 0 2032 1950 3982 923 876 57 0 33 29 0 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 4 972 921 57 4 R T L P 16 6 0 0 0 16 6 Ou t 22 3 0 0 5 21 8 In 38 9 0 0 5 38 4 To t a l El m S t [ W B ] R 85 0 0 3 82 T 13 4 0 0 1 13 3 L 4 0 0 1 3 P 2 2 0 0 0 1395 1649 3044 45 34 79 31 32 63 0 0 0 1471 1715 3186 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] L T R P 645 1000 4 0 12 22 0 0 23 9 0 0 0 0 0 3 680 1031 4 3 El m S t [ E B ] To t a l 32 0 8 88 57 0 33 5 3 In 15 0 7 42 18 0 15 6 7 Ou t 17 0 1 46 39 0 17 8 6 88 6 27 3 0 91 6 L 10 5 0 0 0 10 5 T 51 6 15 15 0 54 6 R 0 0 0 2 2 P Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 1 8 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & Elm StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM) Start Time Elm St Elm St TH 3 TH 3 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:15 AM 32 2 20 1 54 0 9 7 0 16 60 75 0 0 135 1 50 70 0 121 326 7:30 AM 41 2 32 0 75 0 12 14 0 26 54 64 0 1 118 3 49 89 0 141 360 7:45 AM 53 7 22 0 82 0 16 1 0 17 56 52 0 0 108 0 58 81 0 139 346 8:00 AM 52 5 26 0 83 1 8 5 0 14 41 58 0 0 99 3 53 61 0 117 313 Total 178 16 100 1 294 1 45 27 0 73 211 249 0 1 460 7 210 301 0 518 1345 Approach % 60.5 5.4 34.0 -- 1.4 61.6 37.0 -- 45.9 54.1 0.0 -- 1.4 40.5 58.1 --- Total %13.2 1.2 7.4 -21.9 0.1 3.3 2.0 -5.4 15.7 18.5 0.0 -34.2 0.5 15.6 22.4 -38.5 - PHF 0.840 0.571 0.781 -0.886 0.250 0.703 0.482 -0.702 0.879 0.830 0.000 -0.852 0.583 0.905 0.846 -0.918 0.934 Lights 168 16 89 -273 0 44 24 -68 199 239 0 -438 7 193 282 -482 1261 % Lights 94.4 100.0 89.0 -92.9 0.0 97.8 88.9 -93.2 94.3 96.0 --95.2 100.0 91.9 93.7 -93.1 93.8 Mediums 8 0 6 -14 1 1 3 -5 3 7 0 -10 0 13 15 -28 57 % Mediums 4.5 0.0 6.0 -4.8 100.0 2.2 11.1 -6.8 1.4 2.8 --2.2 0.0 6.2 5.0 -5.4 4.2 Articulated Trucks 2 0 5 -7 0 0 0 -0 9 3 0 -12 0 4 4 -8 27 % Articulated Trucks 1.1 0.0 5.0 -2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 4.3 1.2 --2.6 0.0 1.9 1.3 -1.5 2.0 Pedestrians ---1 ----0 ----1 ----0 -- % Pedestrians ---100.0 ---------100.0 ------- Pa g e 3 1 9 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & Elm StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/07/2024 7:15 AMEnding At03/07/2024 8:15 AM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 431 482 913 18 28 46 5 8 13 0 0 0 454 518 972 282 193 7 0 15 13 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 301 210 7 0 R T L P 23 0 0 0 23 Ou t 73 0 0 5 68 In 96 0 0 5 91 To t a l El m S t [ W B ] R 27 0 0 3 24 T 45 0 0 1 44 L 1 0 0 1 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 282 438 720 20 10 30 9 12 21 0 0 0 311 460 771 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] L T R P 199 239 0 0 3 7 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 211 249 0 1 El m S t [ E B ] To t a l 79 8 33 20 0 85 1 In 27 3 14 7 0 29 4 Ou t 52 5 19 13 0 55 7 16 8 8 2 0 17 8 L 16 0 0 0 16 T 89 6 5 0 10 0 R 0 0 0 1 1 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Pa g e 3 2 0 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & Elm StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:30 PM) Start Time Elm St Elm St TH 3 TH 3 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:30 PM 84 5 55 0 144 0 2 6 0 8 50 82 1 0 133 3 63 64 0 130 415 4:45 PM 68 17 41 0 126 0 4 7 0 11 36 84 0 0 120 9 51 57 0 117 374 5:00 PM 68 8 37 0 113 3 10 4 0 17 40 66 0 0 106 9 88 67 1 164 400 5:15 PM 77 11 50 0 138 0 11 8 1 19 50 75 0 0 125 4 72 63 1 139 421 Total 297 41 183 0 521 3 27 25 1 55 176 307 1 0 484 25 274 251 2 550 1610 Approach % 57.0 7.9 35.1 -- 5.5 49.1 45.5 -- 36.4 63.4 0.2 -- 4.5 49.8 45.6 --- Total %18.4 2.5 11.4 -32.4 0.2 1.7 1.6 -3.4 10.9 19.1 0.1 -30.1 1.6 17.0 15.6 -34.2 - PHF 0.884 0.603 0.832 -0.905 0.250 0.614 0.781 -0.724 0.880 0.914 0.250 -0.910 0.694 0.778 0.937 -0.838 0.956 Lights 295 41 181 -517 3 27 25 -55 171 302 1 -474 25 267 239 -531 1577 % Lights 99.3 100.0 98.9 -99.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 97.2 98.4 100.0 -97.9 100.0 97.4 95.2 -96.5 98.0 Mediums 2 0 1 -3 0 0 0 -0 2 5 0 -7 0 5 5 -10 20 % Mediums 0.7 0.0 0.5 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 1.1 1.6 0.0 -1.4 0.0 1.8 2.0 -1.8 1.2 Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -0 3 0 0 -3 0 2 7 -9 13 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.5 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 -0.6 0.0 0.7 2.8 -1.6 0.8 Pedestrians ---0 ----1 ----0 ----2 -- % Pedestrians --------100.0 ---------100.0 -- Pa g e 3 2 1 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & Elm StreetSite Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/07/2024 4:30 PMEnding At03/07/2024 5:30 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 622 531 1153 7 10 17 0 9 9 0 0 0 629 550 1179 239 267 25 0 5 5 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 251 274 25 2 R T L P 67 0 0 0 67 Ou t 55 0 0 0 55 In 12 2 0 0 0 12 2 To t a l El m S t [ W B ] R 25 0 0 0 25 T 27 0 0 0 27 L 3 0 0 0 3 P 1 1 0 0 0 451 474 925 6 7 13 3 3 6 0 0 0 460 484 944 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] L T R P 171 302 1 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 307 1 0 El m S t [ E B ] To t a l 95 4 10 11 0 97 5 In 51 7 3 1 0 52 1 Ou t 43 7 7 10 0 45 4 29 5 2 0 0 29 7 L 41 0 0 0 41 T 18 1 1 1 0 18 3 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:30 PM) Pa g e 3 2 2 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & TH 50Site Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 1 Turning Movement Data Start Time 220th Street TH 50 TH 3 TH 3 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 6 11 8 0 25 2 19 17 0 38 3 55 6 0 64 12 33 4 0 49 176 7:15 AM 9 7 8 0 24 5 18 36 0 59 11 57 11 0 79 24 32 3 1 59 221 7:30 AM 6 13 8 0 27 4 24 29 0 57 9 51 3 0 63 19 46 8 0 73 220 7:45 AM 6 21 17 0 44 8 37 30 0 75 42 44 12 0 98 22 32 14 0 68 285 Hourly Total 27 52 41 0 120 19 98 112 0 229 65 207 32 0 304 77 143 29 1 249 902 8:00 AM 5 17 21 0 43 3 24 28 0 55 11 42 2 0 55 16 33 6 0 55 208 8:15 AM 7 19 10 0 36 4 19 24 0 47 9 51 4 0 64 12 37 7 0 56 203 8:30 AM 3 15 14 0 32 7 16 15 0 38 8 44 8 0 60 20 25 11 0 56 186 8:45 AM 5 10 7 0 22 3 11 18 0 32 5 31 2 0 38 16 14 8 0 38 130 Hourly Total 20 61 52 0 133 17 70 85 0 172 33 168 16 0 217 64 109 32 0 205 727 *** BREAK ***--------------------- 4:00 PM 11 24 17 0 52 10 14 25 0 49 9 51 10 0 70 31 50 6 0 87 258 4:15 PM 11 29 16 0 56 8 15 24 0 47 17 44 7 0 68 37 66 7 0 110 281 4:30 PM 6 34 23 0 63 4 24 35 0 63 16 62 8 0 86 34 51 5 0 90 302 4:45 PM 6 20 15 0 41 4 17 33 0 54 10 67 2 0 79 26 54 10 1 90 264 Hourly Total 34 107 71 0 212 26 70 117 0 213 52 224 27 0 303 128 221 28 1 377 1105 5:00 PM 7 17 16 0 40 4 17 27 0 48 10 47 7 0 64 22 57 11 0 90 242 5:15 PM 10 26 19 0 55 8 19 33 0 60 12 61 7 0 80 27 40 11 0 78 273 5:30 PM 17 19 13 0 49 4 20 33 0 57 16 34 6 0 56 26 34 8 0 68 230 5:45 PM 7 10 11 0 28 6 13 25 0 44 7 35 4 0 46 20 34 11 0 65 183 Hourly Total 41 72 59 0 172 22 69 118 0 209 45 177 24 0 246 95 165 41 0 301 928 Grand Total 122 292 223 0 637 84 307 432 0 823 195 776 99 0 1070 364 638 130 2 1132 3662 Approach % 19.2 45.8 35.0 -- 10.2 37.3 52.5 -- 18.2 72.5 9.3 -- 32.2 56.4 11.5 --- Total %3.3 8.0 6.1 -17.4 2.3 8.4 11.8 -22.5 5.3 21.2 2.7 -29.2 9.9 17.4 3.5 -30.9 - Lights 115 279 218 -612 79 294 395 -768 189 754 95 -1038 334 612 123 -1069 3487 % Lights 94.3 95.5 97.8 -96.1 94.0 95.8 91.4 -93.3 96.9 97.2 96.0 -97.0 91.8 95.9 94.6 -94.4 95.2 Mediums 6 9 5 -20 4 10 11 -25 6 13 4 -23 10 16 6 -32 100 % Mediums 4.9 3.1 2.2 -3.1 4.8 3.3 2.5 -3.0 3.1 1.7 4.0 -2.1 2.7 2.5 4.6 -2.8 2.7 Articulated Trucks 1 4 0 -5 1 3 26 -30 0 9 0 -9 20 10 1 -31 75 % Articulated Trucks 0.8 1.4 0.0 -0.8 1.2 1.0 6.0 -3.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 -0.8 5.5 1.6 0.8 -2.7 2.0 Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----2 -- % Pedestrians ------------------100.0 -- Pa g e 3 2 3 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & TH 50Site Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 2 03/07/2024 7:00 AMEnding At03/07/2024 6:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 1264 1069 2333 30 32 62 36 31 67 0 0 0 1330 1132 2462 123 612 334 0 6 16 10 0 1 10 20 0 0 0 0 2 130 638 364 2 R T L P 75 5 0 24 23 70 8 Ou t 82 3 0 30 25 76 8 In 15 7 8 0 54 48 14 7 6 To t a l TH 5 0 [ W B ] R 43 2 0 26 11 39 5 T 30 7 0 3 10 29 4 L 84 0 1 4 79 P 0 0 0 0 0 909 1038 1947 25 23 48 11 9 20 0 0 0 945 1070 2015 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] L T R P 189 754 95 0 6 13 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 776 99 0 22 0 t h S t r e e t [ E B ] To t a l 12 1 8 42 9 0 12 6 9 In 61 2 20 5 0 63 7 Ou t 60 6 22 4 0 63 2 11 5 6 1 0 12 2 L 27 9 9 4 0 29 2 T 21 8 5 0 0 22 3 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Data Plot Pa g e 3 2 4 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & TH 50Site Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 3 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM) Start Time 220th Street TH 50 TH 3 TH 3 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 7:15 AM 9 7 8 0 24 5 18 36 0 59 11 57 11 0 79 24 32 3 1 59 221 7:30 AM 6 13 8 0 27 4 24 29 0 57 9 51 3 0 63 19 46 8 0 73 220 7:45 AM 6 21 17 0 44 8 37 30 0 75 42 44 12 0 98 22 32 14 0 68 285 8:00 AM 5 17 21 0 43 3 24 28 0 55 11 42 2 0 55 16 33 6 0 55 208 Total 26 58 54 0 138 20 103 123 0 246 73 194 28 0 295 81 143 31 1 255 934 Approach % 18.8 42.0 39.1 -- 8.1 41.9 50.0 -- 24.7 65.8 9.5 -- 31.8 56.1 12.2 --- Total %2.8 6.2 5.8 -14.8 2.1 11.0 13.2 -26.3 7.8 20.8 3.0 -31.6 8.7 15.3 3.3 -27.3 - PHF 0.722 0.690 0.643 -0.784 0.625 0.696 0.854 -0.820 0.435 0.851 0.583 -0.753 0.844 0.777 0.554 -0.873 0.819 Lights 23 56 53 -132 18 99 111 -228 69 187 26 -282 70 131 30 -231 873 % Lights 88.5 96.6 98.1 -95.7 90.0 96.1 90.2 -92.7 94.5 96.4 92.9 -95.6 86.4 91.6 96.8 -90.6 93.5 Mediums 3 1 1 -5 2 3 2 -7 4 4 2 -10 4 9 1 -14 36 % Mediums 11.5 1.7 1.9 -3.6 10.0 2.9 1.6 -2.8 5.5 2.1 7.1 -3.4 4.9 6.3 3.2 -5.5 3.9 Articulated Trucks 0 1 0 -1 0 1 10 -11 0 3 0 -3 7 3 0 -10 25 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 1.7 0.0 -0.7 0.0 1.0 8.1 -4.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 -1.0 8.6 2.1 0.0 -3.9 2.7 Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----1 -- % Pedestrians ------------------100.0 -- Pa g e 3 2 5 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & TH 50Site Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 4 Peak Hour Data 03/07/2024 7:15 AMEnding At03/07/2024 8:15 AM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 321 231 552 9 14 23 13 10 23 0 0 0 343 255 598 30 131 70 0 1 9 4 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 1 31 143 81 1 R T L P 16 7 0 8 7 15 2 Ou t 24 6 0 11 7 22 8 In 41 3 0 19 14 38 0 To t a l TH 5 0 [ W B ] R 12 3 0 10 2 11 1 T 10 3 0 1 3 99 L 20 0 0 2 18 P 0 0 0 0 0 202 282 484 12 10 22 3 3 6 0 0 0 217 295 512 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] L T R P 69 187 26 0 4 4 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 194 28 0 22 0 t h S t r e e t [ E B ] To t a l 33 0 13 2 0 34 5 In 13 2 5 1 0 13 8 Ou t 19 8 8 1 0 20 7 23 3 0 0 26 L 56 1 1 0 58 T 53 1 0 0 54 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM) Pa g e 3 2 6 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & TH 50Site Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 5 Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM) Start Time 220th Street TH 50 TH 3 TH 3 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total 4:00 PM 11 24 17 0 52 10 14 25 0 49 9 51 10 0 70 31 50 6 0 87 258 4:15 PM 11 29 16 0 56 8 15 24 0 47 17 44 7 0 68 37 66 7 0 110 281 4:30 PM 6 34 23 0 63 4 24 35 0 63 16 62 8 0 86 34 51 5 0 90 302 4:45 PM 6 20 15 0 41 4 17 33 0 54 10 67 2 0 79 26 54 10 1 90 264 Total 34 107 71 0 212 26 70 117 0 213 52 224 27 0 303 128 221 28 1 377 1105 Approach % 16.0 50.5 33.5 -- 12.2 32.9 54.9 -- 17.2 73.9 8.9 -- 34.0 58.6 7.4 --- Total %3.1 9.7 6.4 -19.2 2.4 6.3 10.6 -19.3 4.7 20.3 2.4 -27.4 11.6 20.0 2.5 -34.1 - PHF 0.773 0.787 0.772 -0.841 0.650 0.729 0.836 -0.845 0.765 0.836 0.675 -0.881 0.865 0.837 0.700 -0.857 0.915 Lights 34 103 71 -208 25 66 111 -202 52 220 25 -297 119 215 28 -362 1069 % Lights 100.0 96.3 100.0 -98.1 96.2 94.3 94.9 -94.8 100.0 98.2 92.6 -98.0 93.0 97.3 100.0 -96.0 96.7 Mediums 0 2 0 -2 1 3 4 -8 0 2 2 -4 1 3 0 -4 18 % Mediums 0.0 1.9 0.0 -0.9 3.8 4.3 3.4 -3.8 0.0 0.9 7.4 -1.3 0.8 1.4 0.0 -1.1 1.6 Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 -2 0 1 2 -3 0 2 0 -2 8 3 0 -11 18 % Articulated Trucks 0.0 1.9 0.0 -0.9 0.0 1.4 1.7 -1.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 -0.7 6.3 1.4 0.0 -2.9 1.6 Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----1 -- % Pedestrians ------------------100.0 -- Pa g e 3 2 7 o f 5 0 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600 Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com Count Name: TH 3 & TH 50Site Code:Start Date: 03/07/2024Page No: 6 Peak Hour Data 03/07/2024 4:00 PMEnding At03/07/2024 5:00 PM LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians TH 3 [SB] Out In Total 365 362 727 6 4 10 4 11 15 0 0 0 375 377 752 28 215 119 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 1 28 221 128 1 R T L P 26 2 0 10 5 24 7 Ou t 21 3 0 3 8 20 2 In 47 5 0 13 13 44 9 To t a l TH 5 0 [ W B ] R 11 7 0 2 4 11 1 T 70 0 1 3 66 L 26 0 0 1 25 P 0 0 0 0 0 311 297 608 4 4 8 3 2 5 0 0 0 318 303 621 Out In Total TH 3 [NB] L T R P 52 220 25 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 224 27 0 22 0 t h S t r e e t [ E B ] To t a l 35 4 5 3 0 36 2 In 20 8 2 2 0 21 2 Ou t 14 6 3 1 0 15 0 34 0 0 0 34 L 10 3 2 2 0 10 7 T 71 0 0 0 71 R 0 0 0 0 0 P Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM) Pa g e 3 2 8 o f 5 0 3 Direction Westbound Eastbound 7:00 AM 18 37 7:15 AM 26 55 7:30 AM 28 60 7:45 AM 42 55 8:00 AM 32 48 8:15 AM 28 38 8:30 AM 42 34 8:45 AM 20 25 4:00 PM 57 36 4:15 PM 58 32 4:30 PM 61 49 4:45 PM 54 53 5:00 PM 34 39 5:15 PM 46 52 5:30 PM 44 47 5:45 PM 30 38 TH 50 & Golf Course Access Page 329 of 503 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ July 2024 C. Site Layout Exhibit Page 330 of 503 220th STREET PROPOSED 260k SF DATA CENTER #1.3 PROPOSED 260k SF DATA CENTER #1.2 PROPOSED 260k SF DATA CENTER #1.1 PROPOSED 260k SF DATA CENTER #1.4 ADMIN. 225th STREET PR O P O S E D 2 6 0 k S F D A T A C E N T E R # 1 . 5 PR O P O S E D 2 6 0 k S F D A T A C E N T E R # 1 . 6 PROPOSED DEA 345kV/34.5kV SWITCH STATION #1 +/-4.5 AC (600'x330') PROPOSED DEA 345kV/34.5kV SWITCH STATION #2 +/-4.5 AC (600'x330') PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.1 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.2 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.3 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.4 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.5 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.6 ADMIN. 230th STREET OLSON SITE DATA TABLE PARCEL NUMBER 14-00500-01-012 GROSS PARCEL AREA = 6,936,310 SF (159.23 ACRES) NET PARCEL AREA = 6,690,936 SF (153.60 ACRES) TOTAL # DATA CENTERS = 6 TOTAL BUILDING SF SHOWN = 1,594,100 SF FAR (NET) = 23.82 % TOTAL POWER (GROSS) = 408 MW POWER/LAND RATIO = 2.56 MW/AC (GROSS) 2.65 MW/AC (NET) SOUTH BRANCH OF VERMILLION RIVER FARMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS SITE DATA TABLE PARCEL NUMBERS 07-00500-76-012 07-00500-76-011 GROSS PARCEL AREA = 8,212,682 SF (188.53 ACRES) NET PARCEL AREA = 5,222,499 SF (119.89 ACRES) TOTAL # DATA CENTERS = 6 TOTAL BUILDING SF SHOWN = 929,000 SF FAR (NET) = 17.79 % TOTAL POWER (GROSS) = 300 MW POWER/LAND RATIO = 1.59 MW/AC (NET) 2.50 MW/AC (GROSS)EXIST. 345 kV OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE OLSON/FPS 2.15.2024 SHEET NO. 28 3 0 2 2 0 T H S T R E E T FA R M I N G T O N , M N 5 5 0 2 4 OL S O N / F A R M I N G T O N P U B L I C S C H O O L S C1 CO N C E P T S I T E P L A N V 3 Pa g e 3 3 1 o f 5 0 3 220th STREET PROPOSED 260k SF DATA CENTER #1.3 PROPOSED 260k SF DATA CENTER #1.2 PROPOSED 260k SF DATA CENTER #1.1 PROPOSED 260k SF DATA CENTER #1.4 ADMIN. 225th STREET PR O P O S E D 2 6 0 k S F D A T A C E N T E R # 1 . 5 PR O P O S E D 2 6 0 k S F D A T A C E N T E R # 1 . 6 PROPOSED DEA 345kV/34.5kV SWITCH STATION #1 +/-4.5 AC (600'x330') PROPOSED DEA 345kV/34.5kV SWITCH STATION #2 +/-4.5 AC (600'x330') PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.1 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.2 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.3 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.4 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.5 PROPOSED 149k SF DATA CENTER #2.6 ADMIN. 230th STREET OLSON SITE DATA TABLE PARCEL NUMBER 14-00500-01-012 GROSS PARCEL AREA = 6,936,310 SF (159.23 ACRES) NET PARCEL AREA = 6,690,936 SF (153.60 ACRES) TOTAL # DATA CENTERS = 6 TOTAL BUILDING SF SHOWN = 1,594,100 SF FAR (NET) = 23.82 % TOTAL POWER (GROSS) = 408 MW POWER/LAND RATIO = 2.56 MW/AC (GROSS) 2.65 MW/AC (NET) SOUTH BRANCH OF VERMILLION RIVER FARMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS SITE DATA TABLE PARCEL NUMBERS 07-00500-76-012 07-00500-76-011 GROSS PARCEL AREA = 8,212,682 SF (188.53 ACRES) NET PARCEL AREA = 5,222,499 SF (119.89 ACRES) TOTAL # DATA CENTERS = 6 TOTAL BUILDING SF SHOWN = 929,000 SF FAR (NET) = 17.79 % TOTAL POWER (GROSS) = 300 MW POWER/LAND RATIO = 1.59 MW/AC (NET) 2.50 MW/AC (GROSS)EXIST. 345 kV OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE OLSON/FPS 2.15.2024 SHEET NO. 28 3 0 2 2 0 T H S T R E E T FA R M I N G T O N , M N 5 5 0 2 4 OL S O N / F A R M I N G T O N P U B L I C S C H O O L S C2 CO N C E P T S I T E P L A N V 3 Z / A E R I A L Pa g e 3 3 2 o f 5 0 3 Farmington Technology Park – Farmington, MN Traffic Impact Analysis │ July 2024 D. SimTraffic Analysis Results Page 333 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing AM Peak Hour 03/14/2024 Existing AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)35.7 29.3 12.0 34.2 27.7 6.3 7.5 7.7 1.3 9.1 5.3 2.3 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)11.9 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 2.6 0.3 1.8 0.8 0.8 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)32.8 26.5 7.7 8.8 22.3 3.6 13.6 6.5 10.9 11.7 5.8 12.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)197.7 Page 334 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak Hour 03/14/2024 Existing AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 68 143 160 89 76 95 65 87 87 41 Average Queue (ft)21 59 75 43 26 37 19 29 26 8 95th Queue (ft)56 116 135 76 59 80 56 68 69 30 Link Distance (ft)2122 3787 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 51 36 Average Queue (ft)19 3 95th Queue (ft)43 19 Link Distance (ft)5214 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 216 94 76 41 131 112 74 28 85 65 119 Average Queue (ft)102 35 25 9 70 39 13 4 45 22 53 95th Queue (ft)178 70 61 28 116 85 45 19 82 59 96 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 75 300 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 5 Page 335 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing PM Peak Hour 03/14/2024 Existing PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)36.5 32.0 17.6 36.2 33.4 7.5 7.5 8.9 1.4 8.3 3.7 1.5 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)12.1 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 6.0 0.4 0.3 4.8 0.9 1.0 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)32.2 26.8 11.2 24.3 21.5 3.1 17.5 10.5 2.9 12.0 17.3 5.6 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)16.4 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)167.3 Page 336 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Peak Hour 03/14/2024 Existing PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 90 202 171 123 62 104 85 83 91 46 Average Queue (ft)24 92 66 45 18 41 24 27 28 8 95th Queue (ft)65 164 134 80 49 86 64 60 68 29 Link Distance (ft)2122 3787 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 5 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 7 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 31 41 Average Queue (ft)15 6 95th Queue (ft)40 28 Link Distance (ft)5214 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 284 181 66 33 157 125 83 17 42 118 108 101 Average Queue (ft)148 63 17 9 70 58 28 1 13 62 44 52 95th Queue (ft)240 127 48 26 132 109 68 8 37 105 92 88 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 75 300 100 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 8 Page 337 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build - AM Peak Hour 03/18/2024 Opening Year (2029) No-Build - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.9 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)33.1 27.8 11.1 32.7 28.8 6.5 8.7 9.6 1.4 10.6 7.2 2.3 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)12.6 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)5.2 2.2 0.3 1.8 0.8 0.8 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 24.9 8.5 24.9 3.7 15.7 6.8 10.9 13.7 6.6 13.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)249.9 Page 338 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build - AM Peak Hour 03/18/2024 Opening Year (2029) No-Build - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 74 161 166 94 96 105 99 103 98 75 Average Queue (ft)20 66 79 43 28 42 23 31 34 12 95th Queue (ft)56 125 141 76 67 89 69 72 82 44 Link Distance (ft)2122 3787 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 6 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 8 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 57 32 Average Queue (ft)20 3 95th Queue (ft)46 18 Link Distance (ft)1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 196 117 84 50 190 123 86 37 105 91 134 Average Queue (ft)98 41 25 9 84 39 12 4 46 29 58 95th Queue (ft)169 87 61 31 157 86 47 21 88 75 112 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 75 300 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 8 Page 339 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build - PM Peak Hour 03/18/2024 Opening Year (2029) No-Build - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)35.8 29.8 17.0 36.3 33.1 7.5 8.5 10.9 1.4 11.3 4.6 1.9 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)13.0 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)7.8 6.4 0.3 0.4 4.7 1.1 1.2 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)31.9 24.3 12.9 17.0 19.4 3.8 17.9 11.1 1.1 13.6 17.7 5.8 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)16.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)194.6 Page 340 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) No-Build - PM Peak Hour 03/18/2024 Opening Year (2029) No-Build - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 214 154 86 58 119 97 107 96 57 Average Queue (ft)22 96 67 42 20 48 34 43 30 11 95th Queue (ft)56 178 125 76 50 95 79 86 76 43 Link Distance (ft)2122 3787 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 5 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 54 54 Average Queue (ft)18 7 95th Queue (ft)47 32 Link Distance (ft)1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 268 223 61 32 180 140 108 15 46 128 117 118 Average Queue (ft)143 68 16 8 76 57 29 1 13 63 43 50 95th Queue (ft)236 142 45 25 133 111 75 6 39 107 94 89 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 75 300 100 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 6 Page 341 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build - AM Peak Hour 03/18/2024 SimTraffic ReportHorizon Year (2040) No-Build - AM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)32.8 24.5 11.0 28.5 27.2 6.8 9.8 12.1 1.4 13.8 12.1 3.6 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 Total Del/Veh (s)14.1 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)7.0 2.6 0.4 1.6 1.0 0.9 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)33.2 22.4 8.7 26.7 22.3 3.8 18.9 8.4 9.0 16.7 7.5 15.3 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)320.8 Page 342 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build - AM Peak Hour 03/18/2024 SimTraffic ReportHorizon Year (2040) No-Build - AM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 77 151 170 92 85 111 93 136 142 91 Average Queue (ft)25 70 89 46 35 58 35 43 47 17 95th Queue (ft)61 130 154 71 73 105 80 97 104 56 Link Distance (ft)2122 3787 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)7 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)12 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 54 32 Average Queue (ft)22 4 95th Queue (ft)46 19 Link Distance (ft)1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 241 96 93 28 224 113 90 29 119 115 148 Average Queue (ft)104 40 32 8 102 44 18 5 51 30 62 95th Queue (ft)186 83 71 24 178 92 56 22 98 80 114 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 75 300 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 12 Page 343 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build - PM Peak Hour 03/18/2024 SimTraffic ReportHorizon Year (2040) No-Build - PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)36.5 29.5 17.1 33.0 32.4 7.8 11.4 14.3 1.5 13.7 7.8 3.1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)14.9 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 6.4 0.4 0.0 5.4 1.4 1.4 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 28.4 13.7 27.7 23.2 3.3 22.6 13.5 0.3 14.2 20.2 6.9 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)18.6 Total Zone Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)238.4 Page 344 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) No-Build - PM Peak Hour 03/18/2024 SimTraffic ReportHorizon Year (2040) No-Build - PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 111 246 166 120 84 156 117 125 125 85 Average Queue (ft)31 114 78 50 29 63 44 51 46 19 95th Queue (ft)78 210 140 92 67 123 99 100 100 56 Link Distance (ft)2122 3787 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)2 6 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 10 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 48 74 Average Queue (ft)18 13 95th Queue (ft)45 48 Link Distance (ft)1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 297 244 84 50 245 136 104 51 133 117 138 Average Queue (ft)151 93 20 9 99 63 39 16 68 53 58 95th Queue (ft)255 184 51 33 181 119 84 42 116 104 103 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 75 300 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone Summary Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 13 Page 345 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Build - AM Peak Hour 04/03/2024 Opening Year (2029) Build - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)32.5 22.7 9.5 28.8 28.5 7.5 9.5 13.1 1.5 14.4 9.4 3.6 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)13.7 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.0 4.0 0.7 0.2 2.3 1.4 1.7 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)32.0 31.9 10.2 21.6 3.7 18.8 8.4 8.3 15.8 7.4 14.9 4: North Access & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 3.7 3.3 0.9 7.3 3.5 3.6 5: South Access & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.2 3.0 6.6 5.8 6.2 2.3 5.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)24.9 Page 346 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build - AM Peak Hour 04/03/2024 Opening Year (2029) Build - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 84 135 178 122 79 129 101 121 117 87 Average Queue (ft)27 60 89 48 28 56 36 50 48 19 95th Queue (ft)63 112 153 90 66 107 80 100 99 56 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)8 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)14 1 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 74 57 Average Queue (ft)34 10 95th Queue (ft)62 36 Link Distance (ft)3177 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 243 155 82 40 216 139 109 28 117 104 138 Average Queue (ft)106 56 26 11 96 55 22 3 58 37 61 95th Queue (ft)195 120 59 32 172 116 67 17 101 86 112 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 75 300 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 347 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build - AM Peak Hour 04/03/2024 Opening Year (2029) Build - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: North Access & TH 50 (220th St) Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 53 74 Average Queue (ft)6 26 95th Queue (ft)30 49 Link Distance (ft)2088 631 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: South Access & 225th Street Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 75 51 61 Average Queue (ft)27 11 21 95th Queue (ft)60 37 52 Link Distance (ft)3177 1980 701 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 15 Page 348 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Build - PM Peak Hour 04/03/2024 Opening Year (2029) Build - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)35.3 30.7 14.9 32.8 35.3 8.5 9.4 11.8 1.5 12.7 5.8 2.1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)13.2 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)10.9 1.0 8.7 0.4 0.4 5.1 1.5 2.2 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)32.9 29.0 13.6 37.5 22.7 3.6 22.3 11.2 2.0 13.5 18.5 6.7 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)17.8 4: North Access & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)5.2 4.9 5.3 1.0 8.9 7.0 4.3 5: South Access & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 5.0 5.3 6.3 3.7 6.1 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 Total Del/Veh (s)28.5 Page 349 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build - PM Peak Hour 04/03/2024 Opening Year (2029) Build - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 64 201 183 98 68 167 114 126 100 63 Average Queue (ft)22 95 82 51 21 56 35 45 39 16 95th Queue (ft)53 172 147 84 52 122 88 100 86 48 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 8 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 16 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 74 74 Average Queue (ft)36 14 95th Queue (ft)62 48 Link Distance (ft)3177 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 292 235 57 27 217 149 114 4 44 133 115 126 Average Queue (ft)140 85 18 8 100 61 36 0 14 68 52 52 95th Queue (ft)232 171 45 24 184 122 85 3 39 119 104 97 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 75 300 100 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Page 350 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Build - PM Peak Hour 04/03/2024 Opening Year (2029) Build - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: North Access & TH 50 (220th St) Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 44 72 Average Queue (ft)4 30 95th Queue (ft)23 54 Link Distance (ft)2088 631 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: South Access & 225th Street Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 67 51 54 Average Queue (ft)21 11 22 95th Queue (ft)52 40 50 Link Distance (ft)3177 1980 701 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 17 Page 351 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build -AM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Horizon Year (2040) Build - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)30.2 23.5 12.3 30.0 29.0 8.4 11.4 16.9 1.6 19.2 15.6 6.5 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)16.6 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 4.6 0.9 0.3 3.1 1.9 2.1 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)35.2 21.6 9.7 24.1 20.5 3.3 28.2 12.0 14.4 21.9 14.8 19.7 4: North Access & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 5.1 4.2 1.1 7.6 3.8 4.1 5: South Access & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 2.5 12.5 6.2 7.2 3.4 5.7 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)31.5 Page 352 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build -AM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Horizon Year (2040) Build - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft)78 186 235 179 99 158 127 165 162 108 Average Queue (ft)27 80 113 60 41 75 53 77 85 37 95th Queue (ft)68 145 191 113 82 135 105 140 142 85 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 14 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 32 1 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)83 80 Average Queue (ft)36 19 95th Queue (ft)62 57 Link Distance (ft)3178 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 266 166 116 43 283 200 131 46 131 293 232 Average Queue (ft)138 60 36 11 154 80 37 7 84 76 116 95th Queue (ft)227 132 82 30 252 148 92 29 126 187 203 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 75 300 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 Page 353 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build -AM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Horizon Year (2040) Build - AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: North Access & TH 50 (220th St) Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)69 66 Average Queue (ft)9 27 95th Queue (ft)36 49 Link Distance (ft)2088 631 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: South Access & 225th Street Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)60 44 66 Average Queue (ft)25 13 23 95th Queue (ft)53 39 55 Link Distance (ft)3178 1980 701 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 42 Page 354 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Horizon Year (2040) Build -PM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Horizon Year (2040) Build - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)28.5 26.0 16.0 37.3 31.9 8.9 12.9 18.9 1.8 21.5 10.5 4.1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)16.6 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)12.3 1.1 9.4 0.5 0.4 5.9 1.8 2.4 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)34.4 24.3 14.2 17.5 19.0 4.0 32.8 19.0 2.7 18.4 27.8 10.4 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)23.0 4: North Access & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)5.4 5.5 6.1 1.3 9.2 7.2 4.4 5: South Access & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)7.7 5.4 6.0 6.2 2.9 6.5 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)35.8 Page 355 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build -PM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Horizon Year (2040) Build - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 129 243 217 157 69 183 172 201 200 150 Average Queue (ft)29 117 102 63 32 80 69 81 78 37 95th Queue (ft)87 201 186 133 67 143 135 153 158 100 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 9 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 22 1 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)86 79 Average Queue (ft)38 20 95th Queue (ft)69 61 Link Distance (ft)3178 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 383 320 82 51 262 217 168 16 56 194 178 187 Average Queue (ft)193 99 19 11 143 109 70 1 18 106 90 84 95th Queue (ft)303 200 55 34 236 194 144 7 46 163 153 140 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 75 300 100 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Page 356 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) Build -PM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Horizon Year (2040) Build - PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: North Access & TH 50 (220th St) Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)38 67 Average Queue (ft)4 29 95th Queue (ft)25 54 Link Distance (ft)2088 631 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: South Access & 225th Street Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft)63 53 61 Average Queue (ft)24 12 19 95th Queue (ft)55 40 51 Link Distance (ft)3178 1980 701 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 13: Bend Movement NB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft)9 Average Queue (ft)0 95th Queue (ft)6 Link Distance (ft)1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 32 Page 357 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)29.5 21.4 10.5 26.0 26.7 9.5 11.3 14.0 1.4 17.8 11.7 4.5 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)14.4 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 4.3 0.9 0.1 2.4 1.5 2.1 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)33.6 35.2 10.3 22.3 4.0 21.7 9.0 11.0 18.1 9.0 16.2 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 3.6 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)4.4 4.9 3.8 2.0 10.1 4.2 5.2 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)1.6 1.4 0.4 3.2 2.2 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)26.3 Page 358 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft)78 143 185 154 104 122 99 158 131 93 Average Queue (ft)25 58 87 70 38 59 38 70 53 19 95th Queue (ft)63 108 154 122 81 104 82 132 103 58 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)5 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)13 3 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)77 66 Average Queue (ft)39 13 95th Queue (ft)64 43 Link Distance (ft)3904 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 245 114 77 51 246 144 124 29 125 136 158 Average Queue (ft)110 51 26 12 129 65 34 4 68 49 70 95th Queue (ft)190 97 61 33 212 124 88 20 117 105 129 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 75 300 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Page 359 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB WB NB NB Directions Served R LT L R Maximum Queue (ft)15 67 119 68 Average Queue (ft)1 19 50 28 95th Queue (ft)7 55 85 49 Link Distance (ft)2076 632 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Movement EB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)12 62 Average Queue (ft)1 35 95th Queue (ft)7 54 Link Distance (ft)3904 797 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 13: Bend Movement NB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft)5 Average Queue (ft)0 95th Queue (ft)4 Link Distance (ft)1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 17 Page 360 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)32.4 28.7 17.3 37.9 34.4 9.9 12.4 22.7 1.8 25.7 10.0 3.4 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)18.4 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)14.6 0.2 9.4 0.5 0.6 5.9 2.4 3.6 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)32.8 25.1 16.4 56.0 18.2 3.6 31.3 18.4 6.5 17.0 27.6 9.5 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)22.6 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.7 3.5 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s)6.9 7.3 8.1 4.5 33.3 8.0 11.1 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 4.3 0.2 3.3 4.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 Total Del/Veh (s)37.6 Page 361 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB B6 Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR T Maximum Queue (ft)73 248 226 168 86 152 139 319 160 158 4 Average Queue (ft)25 123 95 65 35 80 69 156 71 34 0 95th Queue (ft)60 212 174 123 72 132 122 271 132 101 3 Link Distance (ft)2122 3789 720 720 1476 1476 1892 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 10 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 30 1 1 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 102 4 105 Average Queue (ft)49 0 34 95th Queue (ft)80 3 81 Link Distance (ft)3920 885 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 295 248 70 42 277 205 154 18 54 185 180 154 Average Queue (ft)158 117 16 10 150 105 68 1 18 117 98 68 95th Queue (ft)260 216 51 36 253 177 133 9 46 174 158 122 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 75 300 100 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Page 362 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement WB NB NB Directions Served LT L R Maximum Queue (ft) 131 220 141 Average Queue (ft)54 99 32 95th Queue (ft)102 178 71 Link Distance (ft)2076 632 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)200 Storage Blk Time (%)1 Queuing Penalty (veh)2 Intersection: 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Movement EB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)54 64 Average Queue (ft)4 36 95th Queue (ft)25 55 Link Distance (ft)3920 957 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 13: Bend Movement NB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft)6 Average Queue (ft)0 95th Queue (ft)0 Link Distance (ft)1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 42 Page 363 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)29.8 21.8 11.7 31.5 26.8 10.2 11.6 17.3 1.6 19.9 14.1 5.0 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)16.0 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)9.2 4.3 1.3 0.5 3.2 2.2 2.6 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)33.2 26.3 10.1 22.3 3.8 24.3 9.6 10.6 20.4 9.7 17.0 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.3 1.8 0.3 0.6 3.6 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)10.4 8.2 13.9 5.5 9.7 3.9 8.8 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 2.0 1.5 0.3 5.1 6.6 6.6 2.7 3.3 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)29.4 Page 364 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft)78 146 196 165 90 150 112 215 144 94 Average Queue (ft)22 73 85 74 40 71 47 102 69 28 95th Queue (ft)58 130 151 130 75 123 97 182 127 75 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)6 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)18 3 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)84 78 Average Queue (ft)40 21 95th Queue (ft)67 57 Link Distance (ft)3904 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 214 140 80 54 259 176 128 33 144 153 153 Average Queue (ft)108 55 25 12 147 72 34 5 83 68 76 95th Queue (ft)182 108 60 35 239 140 89 23 132 129 128 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 75 300 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 365 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 Mitigated -AM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T R L T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 120 81 106 72 119 67 Average Queue (ft)49 41 54 30 56 29 95th Queue (ft)96 72 92 64 99 55 Link Distance (ft)3770 2076 626 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Movement NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)71 45 Average Queue (ft)33 25 95th Queue (ft)56 47 Link Distance (ft)742 797 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 22 Page 366 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)31.6 26.3 15.6 35.3 34.2 12.2 13.0 24.1 1.8 27.2 12.7 5.7 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)19.4 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)17.8 11.5 0.5 0.5 6.2 2.3 4.4 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)32.9 32.2 18.0 19.9 21.7 3.7 35.3 18.4 2.5 15.0 27.9 10.1 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)23.8 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.8 3.4 0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)12.1 11.7 16.5 7.1 10.4 5.2 10.6 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 3.6 3.6 0.2 5.8 6.7 7.2 3.1 4.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)38.9 Page 367 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 103 229 212 181 101 166 139 277 173 137 Average Queue (ft)26 117 106 81 36 89 75 146 82 41 95th Queue (ft)71 203 177 144 70 142 128 248 147 101 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)1 12 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 44 5 1 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB NB SB Directions Served LR TR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 127 4 95 Average Queue (ft)60 0 31 95th Queue (ft)102 3 73 Link Distance (ft)3920 885 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 326 369 58 35 352 227 203 12 74 193 188 167 Average Queue (ft)160 121 16 9 181 117 80 1 16 118 99 71 95th Queue (ft)275 265 46 26 307 199 155 8 50 177 164 127 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 75 300 100 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 0 4 0 0 2 1 Page 368 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Year (2029) Scenario 2 Mitigated -PM Peak Hour 05/24/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB Directions Served T R L T L R Maximum Queue (ft) 117 110 140 112 162 82 Average Queue (ft)49 49 67 48 77 32 95th Queue (ft)93 82 112 94 133 59 Link Distance (ft)3770 2076 626 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)12 76 59 Average Queue (ft)1 39 31 95th Queue (ft)8 61 52 Link Distance (ft)3920 769 957 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 62 Page 369 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)28.5 23.9 11.4 30.6 28.3 9.9 12.4 17.2 1.6 19.8 14.8 6.2 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)16.3 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)8.4 4.9 1.0 0.1 2.9 1.8 2.4 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)35.1 21.2 9.9 22.4 3.9 29.0 10.9 11.9 21.8 11.7 19.0 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.4 1.7 0.3 0.6 3.6 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 5.0 5.0 1.2 12.5 4.8 5.8 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)1.8 1.1 0.3 3.2 2.1 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)30.0 Page 370 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft)95 181 210 192 96 146 129 210 152 116 Average Queue (ft)22 78 103 73 41 75 51 90 69 33 95th Queue (ft)67 150 173 132 84 127 105 162 132 82 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)0 11 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 32 3 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft)86 82 Average Queue (ft)42 17 95th Queue (ft)72 55 Link Distance (ft)3904 1815 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 225 128 87 40 341 186 134 35 157 177 220 Average Queue (ft)131 58 30 11 166 84 45 4 87 68 95 95th Queue (ft)210 106 69 31 285 152 103 22 141 137 166 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 75 400 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)1 0 1 0 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 1 0 0 1 2 Page 371 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB WB NB NB Directions Served R L L R Maximum Queue (ft)18 65 127 61 Average Queue (ft)1 23 57 31 95th Queue (ft)10 55 100 55 Link Distance (ft)626 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 200 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Movement EB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)33 71 Average Queue (ft)2 36 95th Queue (ft)14 56 Link Distance (ft)3904 797 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 39 Page 372 of 503 SimTraffic Performance Report Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)1.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)31.7 26.9 16.4 33.9 34.1 9.9 14.2 27.2 1.7 30.4 14.3 5.9 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 Total Del/Veh (s)20.7 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)15.1 0.5 10.2 0.6 0.5 6.7 2.8 3.9 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s)33.7 27.0 16.7 16.6 17.0 3.8 39.2 21.5 2.6 20.4 34.1 12.5 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 Total Del/Veh (s)26.0 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Performance by movement Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.6 3.5 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s)7.1 7.3 8.0 1.9 34.9 8.9 10.8 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT WBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s)5.9 3.9 0.2 3.3 4.4 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 Total Del/Veh (s)42.1 Page 373 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2 Intersection: 1: TH 3 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T L T TR Maximum Queue (ft)97 269 212 197 81 171 154 345 204 170 Average Queue (ft)25 130 100 68 36 105 84 179 99 53 95th Queue (ft)70 230 173 135 70 160 139 296 170 123 Link Distance (ft)2122 3770 720 720 1476 1476 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 100 325 275 Storage Blk Time (%)2 11 2 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh)1 39 3 3 0 Intersection: 2: TH 3 & 225th Street Movement WB SB B9 Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 114 112 4 Average Queue (ft)51 44 0 95th Queue (ft)85 90 3 Link Distance (ft)3920 1815 720 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: TH 3 & CR 50 North Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB Directions Served L TR LT R L T T R L T T R Maximum Queue (ft) 283 298 62 62 382 254 195 11 68 222 224 209 Average Queue (ft)169 134 15 11 204 131 90 0 20 141 123 89 95th Queue (ft)265 245 45 36 330 210 172 6 51 203 187 156 Link Distance (ft)2886 602 1892 1892 1266 1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 75 400 100 175 150 Storage Blk Time (%)0 0 0 0 5 2 3 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 0 0 1 10 2 Page 374 of 503 Queuing and Blocking Report Design Year (2040) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 06/04/2024 Farmington Technology Park SimTraffic Report Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3 Intersection: 4: Access 1 & TH 50 (220th St) Movement EB WB NB NB Directions Served T L L R Maximum Queue (ft)4 99 285 183 Average Queue (ft)0 40 104 36 95th Queue (ft)3 76 218 93 Link Distance (ft)3770 626 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft)300 200 Storage Blk Time (%)3 Queuing Penalty (veh)5 Intersection: 5: Access 2 & 225th Street Movement EB SB Directions Served LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft)67 74 Average Queue (ft)8 36 95th Queue (ft)37 58 Link Distance (ft)3920 957 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 13: Bend Movement NB Directions Served T Maximum Queue (ft)11 Average Queue (ft)0 95th Queue (ft)6 Link Distance (ft)1266 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 65 Page 375 of 503 Appendix C Greenhouse Gas Quantification Page 376 of 503 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC)Version 7 June 2021 Download the guide: Help - Data Management Calculator Guidance - Important Information Tool Sheets Calculator Notes The GHG Protocol also provides guidance on calculating emissions from industrial processes. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting There are three primary steps in completing a GHG inventory. Each emissions source also has these three steps. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-small-business-and-low-emitters-guide The Calculator uses U.S.-specific cross-sector emission factors from the Emission Factors Hub . Many industrial sectors also have process-related emissions sources that are specific to their sector. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program provides guidance and tools that can aid in the calculation and reporting of these emissions: (C) Data must be entered in the units specified on the data entry sheets. Use the "Unit Conversions" or "Heat Content" sheets if unit conversion is necessary prior to entering data into the Calculator. Fire Suppression Quick Data Entry Navigation (2)COLLECT: The second step is to collect data for the defined annual period. This step is typically the most time consuming, since the data can be difficult to gather. This Calculator has help sheets with suggestions and guidance for each emissions source and a general help sheet for data management.Click the drop down menu boxes below to navigate to these sheets. (3)QUANTIFY: The third step is to calculate emissions. This Calculator is designed to complete the emissions quantification step for you. Once the user enters data in this MS Excel spreadsheet, the emissions will be calculated and totaled on the "Summary" sheet. (A) Navigate to the data entry sheets using the drop down menu in the dark grey cell below and then clicking on the "Go To Data Entry Sheet" button. On the data entry sheets enter data in ORANGE cells only. (B) This Calculator has several "Tool Sheets" with useful reference data such as unit conversions, heat contents, and emission factors. Click on the buttons below to go to the appropriate Tool Sheet. The EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator") is designed as a simplified calculation tool to help organizations estimate and inventory their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for US-based operations. All methodologies and default values provided are based on the most current Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Documents and the Emission Factors Hub . The Calculator will quantify the direct and indirect emissions from sources at an organization when activity data are entered into the various sections of the workbook for one annual period. (1)DEFINE: The first step in completing a GHG inventory is to determine the boundaries and emissions sources included within those boundaries. After you have defined your organizational and operational boundaries, you can use the questions on the "Boundary Questions" worksheet to help you determine which emissions sources are relevant to your business. Go to Boundary Questions (D) If more guidance is needed, you can reference the emission factor data sources found on the "Emission Factors" sheet. Emission sources of all seven major GHGs are accounted for in the inventory and in this Calculator: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The Calculator allows the user to estimate GHG emissions from scope 1 (direct), scope 2 (indirect), and some scope 3 (other indirect) sources. Before entering data, please: 1) Enable Macros and 2) Familiarize yourself with the Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Small Business & Low Emitters. Unit Conversions Heat Content Emission Factors Page 377 of 503 Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources Guidance - Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box. (C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion Source Source Source Fuel Quantity ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted Combusted BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu Generator TestingGenerator Testing 2,530,000 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 1,800 Gallons Units (B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. - Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on the "Unit Conversion" sheet. (A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)1 of 2Page 378 of 503 GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type Quantity Combusted Anthracite Coal 0 short tons Bituminous Coal 0 short tons Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short tons Lignite Coal 0 short tons Natural Gas 0 scf Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 1,800 gallons Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons Kerosene 0 gallons Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short tons Landfill Gas 0 scf Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Anthracite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lignite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natural Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 18,378.0 738.0 144.0 Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 18,378.0 738.0 144.0 Wood and Wood Residuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landfill Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Emissions for all Fuels 18,378.0 738.0 144.0 Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 18.4 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0 Fuel Type Fuel Type Units EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)2 of 2Page 379 of 503 Scope 1 Emissions from Mobile Sources Guidance - If mileage or fuel usage is unknown, estimate using approximate fuel economy values (see Reference Table below). - Vehicle year and Miles traveled are not necessary for non-road equiment. Biodiesel Percent:20% Ethanol Percent:80% Table 1. Mobile Source Fuel Combustion and Miles Traveled Source Source Vehicle Vehicle Fuel Units Miles ID Description Type Year Usage Traveled Fleet-012 HQ Fleet NonRoad Ships and Boats - Diesel 1990 500 gal 3,670 Construction Equipment (non-road gas)Construction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Gasoline (2 stroke)2007 484,453 gal 0 Passenger Cars Construction Equipment OnRoad Passenger Cars - Gasoline 2007 1,647 gal 4,368 Construction Equipment (non-road diesel)Construction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel 2007 1,730,188 gal 0 Medium- and Heavy- Duty Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Diesel 2007 3,460 gal 1,560 Light Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 2007 3,230 gal 1,560 Reference Table: Average Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type Passenger Cars 24.1 Motorcycles 44.0 Diesel Buses (Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles)7.3 Other 2-axle, 4-Tire Vehicles 17.6 Single unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks 7.5 Combination Trucks 6.1 GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CO2 Emissions (On-Road and Off-Road Vehicles) CO2 (kg) Motor Gasoline 489,330 gallons 4,296,316.9 Diesel Fuel 1,733,649 gallons 17,700,554.1 Residual Fuel Oil 0 gallons 0.0 Aviation Gasoline 0 gallons 0.0 Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 0 gallons 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)0 gallons 0.0 Ethanol 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the gasoline portion of the fuel, biogenic CO2 emissions are reported below Biodiesel 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the diesel portion of the fuel, biogenic CO2 emissions are reported below Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)0 gallons 0.0 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)0 scf 0.0 - Enter "Fuel Usage" in appropriate units (units appear when vehicle type is selected). (C) Biomass CO2 emissions from biodiesel and ethanol are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. (B) When using biofuels, typically the biofuel (biodiesel or ethanol) is mixed with a petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) for use in vehicles. Enter the biodiesel and ethanol percentages of the fuel if known, or leave default values. (A) Enter annual data for each vehicle or group of vehicles (grouped by vehicle type, vehicle year, and fuel type) in ORANGE cells in Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Only enter vehicles owned or leased by your organization on this sheet. All other vehicle use such as employee commuting or business travel is considered a scope 3 emissions source and should be reported in the corresponding scope 3 sheets. - Select "Vehicle Type" from drop down box (closest type available). - Select "On-Road" or "Non-Road" from drop down box to determine the Vehicle Types available. Average Fuel Economy (mpg) Fuel Type Vehicle Type Fuel Usage Units On-Road or Non-Road? Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)1 of 3Page 380 of 503 Total Organization-Wide On-Road Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Passenger Cars - Gasoline 1984-93 0 0.0 0.0 1994 0 0.0 0.0 1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 4,368 31.4 22.7 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 1987-93 0 0.0 0.0 (Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs)1994 0 0.0 0.0 1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 1,560 16.1 9.5 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Gasoline 1985-86 0 0.0 0.0 1987 0 0.0 0.0 1988-1989 0 0.0 0.0 1990-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 0 0.0 0.0 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycles - Gasoline 1960-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996-present 0 0.0 0.0 Total Organization-Wide On-Road Non-Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Type Fuel Type Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g) 1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0 1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0 1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0 1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0 Vehicle Type Passenger Cars - Diesel Diesel Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)2 of 3Page 381 of 503 1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0 1960-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 1,560 14.8 67.2 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Total Organization-Wide Non-Road Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Type Fuel Type Fuel Usage (gallons)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Residual Fuel Oil --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- Locomotives Diesel --- Jet Fuel --- Aviation Gasoline --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline --- Diesel --- Gasoline (2 stroke)484,453 6,016,903 33,912 Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel 1,730,188 346,038 813,189 LPG --- Gasoline --- Diesel --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline --- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- Gasoline --- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- LPG --- Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 22,408.4 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 0.0 Notes: 1. Average mpg values from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2019 (Nov 2020), Table VM-1. Industrial/Commercial Equipment Logging Equipment Railroad Equipment Recreational Equipment Agricultural Offroad Trucks Construction/Mining Equipment Construction/Mining Offroad Trucks Lawn and Garden Equipment Airport Equipment Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - DieselDiesel Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel Ships and Boats Aircraft Agricultural Equipment Heavy-Duty Trucks Buses Light-Duty Cars Light-Duty Trucks Medium-Duty Trucks EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)3 of 3Page 382 of 503 Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity Guidance (C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased." https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/ Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location. Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions (kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4 Data CenterElectricity Use 2,530,000 MROW (MRO West)51,106,000 <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor>56,134,830.4 6,081.6 868.8 56,134,830.4 6,081.6 868.8 <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> Total Emissions for All Sources 51,106,000 56,134,830.4 6,081.6 868.8 56,134,830.4 6,081.6 868.8 If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the example in the market-based method Help sheet.Location-Based Emission Factors Emissions Emissions Market-Based Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors (D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0. The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-based method considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy. - Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler: (A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1. (B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. Back to Intro Back to Summary Help Help - Market-Based Method Help - Market-Based Method EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 2Page 383 of 503 GHG Emissions CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) Location-Based Electricity Emissions 25,649.2 Market-Based Electricity Emissions 25,649.2 Notes: 1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance - Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016). Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021. EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)2 of 2Page 384 of 503 Scope 3 Emissions from Waste Guidance Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O) Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions (kg) Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 0 metric ton 0 Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 0 metric ton 0 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 0 metric ton 0 Residential Residential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 0 metric ton 0 Nonresidential Buildings Data Center Waste Mixed Recyclables Recycled 234 metric ton 23,208 Nonresidential Buildings Data Center Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Landfilled 2,184 metric ton 1,251,519 Nonresidential Buildings Data Center Waste Mixed Electronics Landfilled 9 metric ton 198 GHG Emissions Total Emissions by Disposal Method Waste Material CO2e (kg) Recycled 23,208 Landfilled 1,251,718 Combusted - Composted - Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)- Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)- Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 1,274.9 (B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture. (C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a new material type or appropriate disposal method. (A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 1 Page 385 of 503 EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (SGEC)Version 7 June 2021 Download the guide: Help - Data Management Calculator Guidance - Important Information Tool Sheets Calculator Notes The EPA Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator") is designed as a simplified calculation tool to help organizations estimate and inventory their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for US-based operations. All methodologies and default values provided are based on the most current Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance Documents and the Emission Factors Hub . The Calculator will quantify the direct and indirect emissions from sources at an organization when activity data are entered into the various sections of the workbook for one annual period. (1)DEFINE: The first step in completing a GHG inventory is to determine the boundaries and emissions sources included within those boundaries. After you have defined your organizational and operational boundaries, you can use the questions on the "Boundary Questions" worksheet to help you determine which emissions sources are relevant to your business. Go to Boundary Questions (D) If more guidance is needed, you can reference the emission factor data sources found on the "Emission Factors" sheet. Emission sources of all seven major GHGs are accounted for in the inventory and in this Calculator: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The Calculator allows the user to estimate GHG emissions from scope 1 (direct), scope 2 (indirect), and some scope 3 (other indirect) sources. Before entering data, please: 1) Enable Macros and 2) Familiarize yourself with the Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management for Small Business & Low Emitters. The GHG Protocol also provides guidance on calculating emissions from industrial processes. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting There are three primary steps in completing a GHG inventory. Each emissions source also has these three steps. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/center-corporate-climate-leadership-small-business-and-low-emitters-guide The Calculator uses U.S.-specific cross-sector emission factors from the Emission Factors Hub . Many industrial sectors also have process-related emissions sources that are specific to their sector. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program provides guidance and tools that can aid in the calculation and reporting of these emissions: (C) Data must be entered in the units specified on the data entry sheets. Use the "Unit Conversions" or "Heat Content" sheets if unit conversion is necessary prior to entering data into the Calculator. Fire Suppression Quick Data Entry Navigation (2)COLLECT: The second step is to collect data for the defined annual period. This step is typically the most time consuming, since the data can be difficult to gather. This Calculator has help sheets with suggestions and guidance for each emissions source and a general help sheet for data management.Click the drop down menu boxes below to navigate to these sheets. (3)QUANTIFY: The third step is to calculate emissions. This Calculator is designed to complete the emissions quantification step for you. Once the user enters data in this MS Excel spreadsheet, the emissions will be calculated and totaled on the "Summary" sheet. (A) Navigate to the data entry sheets using the drop down menu in the dark grey cell below and then clicking on the "Go To Data Entry Sheet" button. On the data entry sheets enter data in ORANGE cells only. (B) This Calculator has several "Tool Sheets" with useful reference data such as unit conversions, heat contents, and emission factors. Click on the buttons below to go to the appropriate Tool Sheet. Unit Conversions Heat Content Emission Factors Page 386 of 503 Scope 1 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources Guidance - Select "Fuel Combusted" from drop down box. (C) Biomass CO2 emissions are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. Table 1. Stationary Source Fuel Combustion Source Source Source Fuel Quantity ID Description Area (sq ft)Combusted Combusted BLR-012 East Power Plant 12,517 Natural Gas 10,000 MMBtu Low Density ResidentialNatural Gas Use 189 Natural Gas 13,199 MMBtu Low/Medium Density ResidentialNatural Gas Use 348 Natural Gas 20,077 MMBtu Medium Density ResidentialNatural Gas Use 228 Natural Gas 7,638 MMBtu CommercialNatural Gas Use 100,000 Natural Gas 2,150 MMBtu Units (B) If fuel is consumed in a facility but stationary fuel consumption data are not available, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. - Enter "Quantity Combusted" and choose the appropriate units from the drop down box in the unit column. If it's necessary to convert units, common heat contents can be found on the "Heat Content" sheet and unit conversions on the "Unit Conversion" sheet. (A) Enter annual data for each combustion unit, facility, or site (by fuel type) in ORANGE cells on Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Back to Intro Back to Summary HelpHeat Content EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)1 of 2Page 387 of 503 GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Stationary Source Combustion by Fuel Type Quantity Combusted Anthracite Coal 0 short tons Bituminous Coal 0 short tons Sub-bituminous Coal 0 short tons Lignite Coal 0 short tons Natural Gas 41,972,485 scf Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0 gallons Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0 gallons Kerosene 0 gallons Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0 gallons Wood and Wood Residuals 0 short tons Landfill Gas 0 scf Total Organization-Wide CO2, CH4 and N2O Emissions from Stationary Source Fuel Combustion CO2 (kg)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Anthracite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub-bituminous Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lignite Coal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Natural Gas 2,284,982.1 43,231.7 4,197.2 Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kerosene 0.0 0.0 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Fossil Fuel Emissions 2,284,982.1 43,231.7 4,197.2 Wood and Wood Residuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landfill Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Non-Fossil Fuel Emissions 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Emissions for all Fuels 2,284,982.1 43,231.7 4,197.2 Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 2,287.3 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Stationary Combustion 0.0 Fuel Type Fuel Type Units EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 1.0)2 of 2Page 388 of 503 Scope 1 Emissions from Mobile Sources Guidance - If mileage or fuel usage is unknown, estimate using approximate fuel economy values (see Reference Table below). - Vehicle year and Miles traveled are not necessary for non-road equiment. Biodiesel Percent:20% Ethanol Percent:80% Table 1. Mobile Source Fuel Combustion and Miles Traveled Source Source Vehicle Vehicle Fuel Units Miles ID Description Type Year Usage Traveled Fleet-012 HQ Fleet NonRoad Ships and Boats - Diesel 1990 500 gal 3,670 Construction Equipment (non-road gas)Construction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Gasoline (2 stroke)2007 292,969 gal 0 Passenger Cars Construction Equipment OnRoad Passenger Cars - Gasoline 2007 996 gal 4,368 Construction Equipment (non-road diesel)Construction Equipment NonRoad Construction/Mining Equipment - Diesel 2007 1,046,319 gal 0 Medium- and Heavy- Duty Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Diesel 2007 2,093 gal 1,560 Light Trucks Construction Equipment OnRoad Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 2007 1,953 gal 1,560 Reference Table: Average Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type Passenger Cars 24.1 Motorcycles 44.0 Diesel Buses (Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles)7.3 Other 2-axle, 4-Tire Vehicles 17.6 Single unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks 7.5 Combination Trucks 6.1 GHG Emissions Total Organization-Wide Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CO2 Emissions (On-Road and Off-Road Vehicles) CO2 (kg) Motor Gasoline 295,919 gallons 2,598,167.9 Diesel Fuel 1,048,412 gallons 10,704,287.7 Residual Fuel Oil 0 gallons 0.0 Aviation Gasoline 0 gallons 0.0 Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 0 gallons 0.0 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)0 gallons 0.0 Ethanol 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the gasoline portion of the fuel, biogenic CO2 emissions are reported below Biodiesel 0 gallons 0.0 Note: emissions here are only for the diesel portion of the fuel, biogenic CO2 emissions are reported below Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)0 gallons 0.0 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)0 scf 0.0 On-Road or Non-Road? Average Fuel Economy (mpg) Fuel Type Vehicle Type Fuel Usage Units - Enter "Fuel Usage" in appropriate units (units appear when vehicle type is selected). (C) Biomass CO2 emissions from biodiesel and ethanol are not reported in the total emissions, but are reported separately at the bottom of the sheet. (B) When using biofuels, typically the biofuel (biodiesel or ethanol) is mixed with a petroleum fuel (diesel or gasoline) for use in vehicles. Enter the biodiesel and ethanol percentages of the fuel if known, or leave default values. (A) Enter annual data for each vehicle or group of vehicles (grouped by vehicle type, vehicle year, and fuel type) in ORANGE cells in Table 1. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Only enter vehicles owned or leased by your organization on this sheet. All other vehicle use such as employee commuting or business travel is considered a scope 3 emissions source and should be reported in the corresponding scope 3 sheets. - Select "Vehicle Type" from drop down box (closest type available). - Select "On-Road" or "Non-Road" from drop down box to determine the Vehicle Types available. Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)1 of 3Page 389 of 503 Total Organization-Wide On-Road Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Passenger Cars - Gasoline 1984-93 0 0.0 0.0 1994 0 0.0 0.0 1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 4,368 31.4 22.7 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Light-Duty Trucks - Gasoline 1987-93 0 0.0 0.0 (Vans, Pickup Trucks, SUVs)1994 0 0.0 0.0 1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 1,560 16.1 9.5 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Heavy-Duty Vehicles - Gasoline 1985-86 0 0.0 0.0 1987 0 0.0 0.0 1988-1989 0 0.0 0.0 1990-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996 0 0.0 0.0 1997 0 0.0 0.0 1998 0 0.0 0.0 1999 0 0.0 0.0 2000 0 0.0 0.0 2001 0 0.0 0.0 2002 0 0.0 0.0 2003 0 0.0 0.0 2004 0 0.0 0.0 2005 0 0.0 0.0 2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007 0 0.0 0.0 2008 0 0.0 0.0 2009 0 0.0 0.0 2010 0 0.0 0.0 2011 0 0.0 0.0 2012 0 0.0 0.0 2013 0 0.0 0.0 2014 0 0.0 0.0 2015 0 0.0 0.0 2016 0 0.0 0.0 2017 0 0.0 0.0 2018 0 0.0 0.0 Motorcycles - Gasoline 1960-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996-present 0 0.0 0.0 Total Organization-Wide On-Road Non-Gasoline Mobile Source Mileage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Type Fuel Type Vehicle Year Mileage (miles)CH4 (g)N2O (g) 1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0 1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0 1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0 1960-1982 0 0.0 0.0 1983-1995 0 0.0 0.0 Vehicle Type Passenger Cars - Diesel Diesel Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)2 of 3Page 390 of 503 1996-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 0 0.0 0.0 1960-2006 0 0.0 0.0 2007-2018 1,560 14.8 67.2 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Methanol 0 0.0 0.0 Ethanol 0 0.0 0.0 CNG 0 0.0 0.0 LPG 0 0.0 0.0 LNG 0 0.0 0.0 Biodiesel 0 0.0 0.0 Total Organization-Wide Non-Road Mobile Source Fuel Usage and CH4/N2O Emissions Vehicle Type Fuel Type Fuel Usage (gallons)CH4 (g)N2O (g) Residual Fuel Oil --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- Locomotives Diesel --- Jet Fuel --- Aviation Gasoline --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline --- Diesel --- Gasoline (2 stroke)292,969 3,638,681 20,508 Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel 1,046,319 209,264 491,770 LPG --- Gasoline --- Diesel --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline --- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- Gasoline --- Diesel --- LPG --- Gasoline (2 stroke)--- Gasoline (4 stroke)--- Diesel --- LPG --- Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 13,551.3 Total Biomass CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Mobile Sources 0.0 Notes: 1. Average mpg values from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2019 (Nov 2020), Table VM-1. Ships and Boats Aircraft Agricultural Equipment Heavy-Duty Trucks Buses Light-Duty Cars Light-Duty Trucks Medium-Duty Trucks Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles - DieselDiesel Light-Duty Trucks - Diesel Diesel Industrial/Commercial Equipment Logging Equipment Railroad Equipment Recreational Equipment Agricultural Offroad Trucks Construction/Mining Equipment Construction/Mining Offroad Trucks Lawn and Garden Equipment Airport Equipment EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Direct 2.0)3 of 3Page 391 of 503 Scope 2 Emissions from Purchase of Electricity Guidance (C) Select "eGRID subregion" from drop box and enter "Electricity Purchased." https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/ Tips: Enter electricity usage by location and then look up the eGRID subregion for each location. Table 1. Total Amount of Electricity Purchased by eGRID Subregion Source Source Source eGRID Subregion Electricity CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O ID Description Area (sq ft)where electricity is consumed Purchased Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions (kWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb/MWh)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb)(lb) Bldg-012 East Power Plant 12,517 HIMS (HICC Miscellaneous)200,000 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 237,120.0 28.6 4.4 Low Density ResidentialElectricity Use 189 MROW (MRO West)2,032,506 <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor>2,232,504.6 241.9 34.6 2,232,504.6 241.9 34.6 Low/Medium Density ResidentialElectricity Use 348 MROW (MRO West)2,798,616 <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor>3,073,999.8 333.0 47.6 3,073,999.8 333.0 47.6 Medium Density ResidentialElectricity Use 228 MROW (MRO West)1,400,604 <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor>1,538,423.4 166.7 23.8 1,538,423.4 166.7 23.8 CommercialElectricity Use 100,000 MROW (MRO West)1,410,000 <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor>1,548,744.0 167.8 24.0 1,548,744.0 167.8 24.0 <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor> <enter factor><enter factor><enter factor> Total Emissions for All Sources 7,641,726 8,393,671.8 909.4 129.9 8,393,671.8 909.4 129.9 (D) See the market-based emission factor hierarchy on the market-based method Help sheet. If any of the first four types of emission factors are applicable, enter the factors in the yellow cells marked as "<enter factor>". If not, leave the yellow cells as is, and eGRID subregion factors will be used for market-based emissions. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ) for a facility that purchases RECs for 100% of its consumption, and therefore has a market-based emission factor of 0. The Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity Guidance document provides guidance for quantifying two scope 2 emissions totals, using a location-based method and a market-based method. The organization should quantify and report both totals in its GHG inventory. The location-based method considers average emission factors for the electricity grids that provide electricity. The market-based method considers contractual arrangements under which the organization procures electricity from specific sources, such as renewable energy. - Use map (Figure 1) at bottom of sheet to determine appropriate eGRID subregion. If subregion cannot be determined from the map, find the correct subregion by entering the location's zip code into EPA’s Power Profiler: (A) Enter total annual electricity purchased in kWh and each eGRID subregion for each facility or site in ORANGE cells of Table 1. (B) If electricity consumption data are not available for a facility, an estimate should be made for completeness. See the "Items to Note" section of the Help sheet for suggested estimation approaches. If you purchase renewable energy that is less than 100% of your site's electricity, see the example in the market-based method Help sheet.Location-Based Emission Factors Emissions Emissions Market-Based Use these cells to enter applicable market-based emission factors Back to Intro Back to Summary Help Help - Market-Based Method Help - Market-Based Method EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)1 of 2Page 392 of 503 GHG Emissions CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) Location-Based Electricity Emissions 3,835.2 Market-Based Electricity Emissions 3,835.2 Notes: 1. CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions are estimated using methodology provided in EPA's Center for Corporate Climate Leadership Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance - Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity (January 2016). Figure 1. EPA eGRID2019, February 2021. EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Indirect 1.0)2 of 2Page 393 of 503 Scope 3 Emissions from Waste Guidance Table 1. Waste Disposal Weight by Waste Material and Disposal Method (CO2, CH4 and N2O) Source ID Source Description Waste Material Disposal Method Weight Unit CO2e Emissions (kg) Bldg-012 East Power Plant Finished Goods Steel Cans Landfilled 1,000 metric ton 22,040 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 570 metric ton 270,100 Residential Residential Waste Mixed MSW municipal solid waste Combusted 681 metric ton 322,742 Nonresidential Buildings Nonresidential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 900 metric ton 89,262 Residential Residential Recycling Mixed Recyclables Recycled 1,075 metric ton 106,659 GHG Emissions Total Emissions by Disposal Method Waste Material CO2e (kg) Recycled 195,921 Landfilled - Combusted 592,842 Composted - Anaerobically Digested (Dry Digestate with Curing)- Anaerobically Digested (Wet Digestate with Curing)- Total CO2 Equivalent Emissions (metric tons) - Waste 788.8 (B) Choose the appropriate material and disposal method from the drop down options. For the average-data method, use one of the mixed material types, such as mixed MSW. If the exact waste material is not available, consider an appropriate proxy. For example, dimensional lumber can be used as a proxy for wood furniture. (C) Choose an appropriate disposal method. Note that not all disposal methods are available for all materials. If there is a #NA or # Value error in the emissions column, you must pick a new material type or appropriate disposal method. (A) Enter annual waste data in ORANGE cells. Example entry is shown in first row (GREEN Italics ). Back to Intro Back to Summary Help EPA Climate Leaders Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator (Optional 3.0)1 of 1 Page 394 of 503 Appendix D Additional Species Information Page 395 of 503 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 Phone: (952) 858-0793 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2024-0062460 Project Name: Farmington Technology Park Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). Threatened and Endangered Species The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. Consultation Technical Assistance Please refer to refer to our Section 7 website for guidance and technical assistance, including step-by-step instructions for making effects determinations for each species that might be present and for specific guidance on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, USDA Rural Development projects, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA. Page 396 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 2 of 17 1. 2. We recommend running the project (if it qualifies) through our Minnesota-Wisconsin Federal Endangered Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin ("D-key")). A demonstration video showing how-to access and use the determination key is available. Please note that the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key is the third option of 3 available d-keys. D-keys are tools to help Federal agencies and other project proponents determine if their proposed action has the potential to adversely affect federally listed species and designated critical habitat. The Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key includes a structured set of questions that assists a project proponent in determining whether a proposed project qualifies for a certain predetermined consultation outcome for all federally listed species found in Minnesota and Wisconsin (except for the northern long-eared bat- see below), which includes determinations of “no effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In each case, the Service has compiled and analyzed the best available information on the species’ biology and the impacts of certain activities to support these determinations. If your completed d-key output letter shows a "No Effect" (NE) determination for all listed species, print your IPaC output letter for your files to document your compliance with the Endangered Species Act. For Federal projects with a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination, our concurrence becomes valid if you do not hear otherwise from us after a 30-day review period, as indicated in your letter. If your d-key output letter indicates additional coordination with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office is necessary (i.e., you get a “May Affect” determination), you will be provided additional guidance on contacting the Service to continue ESA coordination outside of the key; ESA compliance cannot be concluded using the key for “May Affect” determinations unless otherwise indicated in your output letter. Note: Once you obtain your official species list, you are not required to continue in IPaC with d-keys, although in most cases these tools should expedite your review. If you choose to make an effects determination on your own, you may do so. If the project is a Federal Action, you may want to review our section 7 step-by-step instructions before making your determinations. Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed Species If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for no effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed and Candidate Species on our office website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is no effect. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. Page 397 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 3 of 17 3. ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred. Northern Long-Eared Bats Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in determining if your project may affect these species. This species hibernates in caves or mines only during the winter. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, the hibernation season is considered to be November 1 to March 31. During the active season (April 1 to October 31) they roost in forest and woodland habitats. Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long-eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human- made structures, such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be affected. Examples of unsuitable habitat include: Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas, Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas), A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and A monoculture stand of shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees. If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the following activities are proposed: Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year, Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine, Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine, Construction of one or more wind turbines, or Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains. If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No Page 398 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 4 of 17 Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for your records. If any of the above activities are proposed, and the northern long-eared bat appears on the user’s species list, the federal project user will be directed to either the range-wide northern long-eared bat D-key or the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Railways Administration, and Federal Transit Administration Indiana bat/ Northern long-eared bat D-key, depending on the type of project and federal agency involvement. Similar to the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key, these d-keys helps to determine if prohibited take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter. Please note: On November 30, 2022, the Service published a proposal final rule to reclassify the northern long-eared bat as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. On January 26, 2023, the Service published a 60-day extension for the final reclassification rule in the Federal Register, moving the effective listing date from January 30, 2023, to March 31, 2023. This extension will provide stakeholders and the public time to preview interim guidance and consultation tools before the rule becomes effective. When available, the tools will be available on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website (https://www.fws.gov/species/northern-long- eared-bat-myotis-septentrionalis). Once the final rule goes into effect on March 31, 2023, the 4(d) D-key will no longer be available (4(d) rules are not available for federally endangered species) and will be replaced with a new Range-wide NLEB D-key (range-wide d-key). For projects not completed by March 31, 2023, that were previously reviewed under the 4(d) d-key, there may be a need for reinitiation of consultation. For these ongoing projects previously reviewed under the 4(d) d-key that may result in incidental take of the northern long-eared bat, we recommend you review your project using the new range-wide d-key once available. If your project does not comply with the range-wide d-key, it may be eligible for use of the Interim (formal) Consultation framework (framework). The framework is intended to facilitate the transition from the 4(d) rule to typical Section 7 consultation procedures for federally endangered species and will be available only until spring 2024. Again, when available, these tools (new range-wide d-key and framework) will be available on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website. Whooping Crane Whooping crane is designated as a non-essential experimental population in Wisconsin and consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is only required if project activities will occur within a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park. If project activities are proposed on lands outside of a National Wildlife Refuge or National Park, then you are not required to consult. For additional information on this designation and consultation requirements, please review “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.” Other Trust Resources and Activities Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Should bald or golden eagles occur within or near the project area please contact our office for further coordination. For communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below. Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the Page 399 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 5 of 17 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings. Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts. Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds. Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and operating wind energy facilities. State Department of Natural Resources Coordination While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your proposed project area. Minnesota Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: Review.NHIS@state.mn.us Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage Email: DNRERReview@wi.gov We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with questions or for additional information. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Bald & Golden Eagles Migratory Birds Wetlands Page 400 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 6 of 17 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office 3815 American Blvd East Bloomington, MN 55425-1659 (952) 858-0793 Page 401 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 7 of 17 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2024-0062460 Project Name:Farmington Technology Park Project Type:Commercial Development Project Description:This is a proposed data center with associated roads and utilities. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@44.62328565,-93.12136222055418,14z Counties:Dakota County, Minnesota Page 402 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 8 of 17 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 Page 403 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 9 of 17 MAMMALS NAME STATUS Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045 Endangered Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 Proposed Endangered BIRDS NAME STATUS Whooping Crane Grus americana Population: U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NC, NM, OH, SC, TN, UT, VA, WI, WV, western half of WY) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 Experimental Population, Non- Essential INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9383 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/RQ73YH4FIFHLTAZPDA3ZX5OLXY/documents/ generated/5967.pdf Endangered CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. Page 404 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 10 of 17 1. 2. 3. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () 1 2 3 Page 405 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 11 of 17 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 1. 2. 3. no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action MIGRATORY BIRDS Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below. Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles". The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) 1 2 3 Page 406 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 12 of 17 For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON American Golden-plover Pluvialis dominica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10561 Breeds elsewhere Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9454 Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406 Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9482 Breeds elsewhere Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9561 Breeds elsewhere Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9439 Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31 Page 407 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 13 of 17 NAME BREEDING SEASON Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398 Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478 Breeds elsewhere Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Breeds elsewhere Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9294 Breeds May 1 to Aug 31 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9431 Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Page 408 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 14 of 17 no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC American Golden- plover BCC Rangewide (CON) Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) Bobolink BCC Rangewide (CON) Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Hudsonian Godwit BCC Rangewide (CON) Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Pectoral Sandpiper BCC Rangewide (CON) Prothonotary Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Red-headed Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR Short-billed Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Page 409 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 15 of 17 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Upland Sandpiper BCC - BCR Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action WETLANDS Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1A PEM1Af PEM1Cd PEM1C PEM1Ad FRESHWATER POND PABHx PABH FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND PSS1/EM1A PFO1A PSS1A Page 410 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 16 of 17 ▪ ▪ RIVERINE R2UBFx R4SBC Page 411 of 503 Project code: 2024-0062460 03/13/2024 18:42:25 UTC 17 of 17 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Kimley-Horn and Associates Name:Maxwell Forsman Address:14800 Galaxie Avenue Address Line 2:Suite 200 City:Apple Valley State:MN Zip:55124 Email max.forsman@kimley-horn.com Phone:9529052910 Page 412 of 503 Farmington Technology Park MCE #: 2024-00199 Page 1 of 4 Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details have not been finalized and the results are not official. Project Name: Farmington Technology Park Project Proposer: Tract Management Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Project Type Activities: Tree Removal;Waterbody or watercourse impacts (e.g., dewatering, discharge, excavation, fill, runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology));Wetland impacts (e.g., dewatering, tiling, drainage, discharge, excavation, fill, runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology) TRS: T113 R19 S4, T113 R19 S5, T113 R19 S8 County(s): Dakota DNR Admin Region(s): Central Reason Requested: Other Project Description: This project includes the development of a data center with associated utilities. Existing Land Uses: Existing land use of the northern parcel is the Fountain Valley Golf Course. Existing land use on the south parcel includes both agricultural fields and ... Landcover / Habitat Impacted: Impacts to agricultural fields and trees are anticipated. Waterbodies Affected: Wetlands and waterways present within the study area. Potential temporary wetland impacts may occur due to the development of buildings and utilities. Groundwater Resources Affected: N/A Previous Natural Heritage Review: No Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS Category Results Response By Category Project Details Comments Tree Removal - Recommendations Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required State-Listed Endangered or Threatened Species Needs Further Review State-protected Species in Vicinity State-Listed Species of Special Concern No Comments No Further Review Required Federally Listed Species Comments Visit IPaC for Federal Review RPBB High Potential Zone 2/21/2024 08:49 AM Page 413 of 503 Farmington Technology Park MCE #: 2024-00199 Page 2 of 4 February 21, 2024 Project Name: Farmington Technology Park Project Proposer: Tract Management Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial Project ID: MCE #2024-00199 AUTOMATED RESULTS: FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED As requested, the above project has undergone an automated review for potential impacts to rare features. Based on this review, one or more rare features may be impacted by the proposed project and further review by the Natural Heritage Review Team is needed. You will receive a separate notification email when the review process is complete and the Natural Heritage Review letter has been posted. Please refer to the table on the cover page of this report for a summary of potential impacts to rare features. For additional information or planning purposes, use the Explore Page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer to view the potentially impacted rare features or to create a Conservation Planning Report for the proposed project. If you have additional information to help resolve the potential impacts listed in the summary results, please attach related project documentation in the Edit Details tab of the Project page. Relevant information includes, but is not limited to, additional project details, completed habitat assessments, or survey results. This additional information will be considered during the project review. 2/21/2024 08:49 AM Page 414 of 503 Farmington Technology Park MCE #: 2024-00199 Page 3 of 4 2/21/2024 08:49 AM Page 415 of 503 Farmington Technology Park MCE #: 2024-00199 Page 4 of 4 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 2/21/2024 08:49 AM Page 416 of 503 Appendix E Comment Responses Page 417 of 503 1 Introduction Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 5c, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) shall revise the environmental analysis document based on comments received during the comment period. The RGU shall include in the document a section specifically responding to each timely, substantive comment received that indicates in what way the comment has been addressed. The 30-day Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) comment period began August 27, 2024, and comments were accepted through September 26, 2024. Four (4) comment letters were received from government agencies and eight (8) comment letters were received from members of the public. Responses to those comments are included in the following sections, and copies of the comment letters are included in Appendix F. 1. Dakota County Comment Response Environmental Resources Section 11.a.: due to the shallow depth to water (measured to be 6 to 8 feet in nearby shallow drivepoint wells before they were sealed), the site’s location within the Hastings wellhead protection area and the DWSMA that is mapped as high vulnerability; chemicals used on the site can impact groundwater. Consider native plantings, adequate thickness of high quality top soil and drought tolerant grass like fescue that will reduce the need for irrigation, lawn care chemicals and fertilizers. Consider winter-smart design of parking lots to reduce deicing salt and its impacts to aquatic life and water quality. Keep angle of sun in mind to ensure it reaches and melts critical icy patches. Consider the direction of prevailing winter wind to prevent drifting snow, plant trees to create a living snow fence. Implement pavement alternatives such a permeable pavements. Minimized the flow of meltwater across roads and parking lots to mitigate refreezing across roads. Contact Environmental Resources at 952-891-7000 or environ@co.dakota.mn.us with questions or for additional information. Comment noted. These identified measures will be evaluated and incorporated as feasible into the design of the proposed development in the AUAR Study Area. Pa g e 4 1 8 o f 5 0 3 2 2. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment Response Climate Considerations and Adaptations As energy needs and renewable energy goals put further pressure on agricultural lands, some communities have started to tap into industrial facilities to combine development with energy production through the use of rooftop solar. Installing solar panels on industrial facilities has the added benefit of producing energy right where it is needed without any additional facility footprint. We encourage the City as well as local energy providers to explore the feasibility of combining these land uses to help meet state climate goals as the City plans for the future. Comment noted. The incorporation of rooftop solar will be evaluated and incorporated as feasible. We appreciate that the development would consider installing water reuse systems to reduce water usage. Comment noted. Zoning It is unclear if any of the development is located within shoreland and subject to local shoreland ordinances. The development is not located within shoreland and therefore is not subject to local shoreland ordinances. This has been noted in the Final AUAR. Geology, Soils, and Topography The AUAR notes that there are karst conditions located approximately 5,000 feet from the study area. With the proximity of karst conditions, potential pollutants need to be handled with care in order to protect the drinking water of everyone in the area. Studies should determine that any structures on the site will be supported by underlying geologic materials. This has been noted in the Final AUAR. This section should discuss the suitability of soils for the infiltration of stormwater. This has been added in the Final AUAR. Soil infiltration and stormwater management are discussed further in Section 12 of the Final AUAR. Water Resources We appreciate that the project proposer will implement a chloride management plan for either development scenario. Comment noted. Pa g e 4 1 9 o f 5 0 3 3 Comment Response A DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required if the water pumped exceeds 10,000 gallons in a day, or one million gallons in one year. The DNR General Permit for Temporary Appropriation, with its lower permit application fee and reduced time for review, may be used for the dewatering if the dewatering volume is less than 50 million gallons and the time of the appropriation is less than one year. The project area is within the Vermillion River Watershed and within the vicinity of designated trout streams, which are protected by the DNR. Additional regulation and review may be required when permitting within five miles of a designated trout stream. Comment noted. Any dewatering for construction will be coordinated with the DNR if it exceeds the identified thresholds. A Water Appropriations Permit has been identified in the permits and approvals table. The AUAR references a City of Farmington 2020 water demand of 2.14 MGD, and a Scenario 1 additional water demand of 2.35 MGD. This would more than double the volume the city currently uses (without accounting for potential demand from other proposed data centers. The AUAR Guidance in the instructions states that, “If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.” There is no discussion of the reuse of wastewater in this AUAR other than a brief mention in Table 2. If any additional volume needed would be coming from pumped groundwater, it is likely that there would need to be additional water supply wells, and at a minimum a large increase in total pumping volume compared to what is currently permitted (2.74 MGD). Per instructions, please supply specific information on impacts to groundwater levels and resultant impacts on other resources, including the Vermillion River (both the potential for stream depletion to occur from high-capacity pumping of the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer and its protected status as a trout stream), and interconnections among the Prairie du Chien/Jordan, Jordan, and quaternary aquifers. The siting of a new well would be very important to this analysis. The City received an amended appropriation permit in 2021 with the permit for Well 9. It was anticipated during the issuance of the permit for Well 9 that future wells would be needed to accommodate growth in City. The City has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report will review the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. Wastewater reuse has been evaluated by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for this region of Dakota County and water reuse may be evaluated during the site plan review process. If additional capacity is needed in this area of the City, the City of Farmington would complete a well siting study and analysis. An application for a water appropriations permit would completed and submitted to the DNR for review. Pa g e 4 2 0 o f 5 0 3 4 Comment Response Evaluation of an amendment to DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1959-0725 must include consideration of the sustainability standard (MN statute 103G.287 Subd.5). As per instructions for completing 12.b.iii, please: a. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. b. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. c. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency connections. Comment noted. If a well appropriations permit is needed, the City will follow the required instructions. Contaminants Because the southern portion of the AUAR study area is located within a wellhead protection area (Hastings) and a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) (Hastings, high vulnerability), potential pollutants need to be handled with care in order to protect the drinking water of the city. Comment noted. Rare Features Please note that if a rare feature is identified within one mile of the project area using a NHIS license agreement, then the project should be submitted to DNR for further coordination. Only DNR can determine if a project is likely to impact state-listed species. a. Section 14c: Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. Loggerhead shrikes use grasslands that contain short grass and scattered perching sites such as hedgerows, shrubs, or small trees. They can be found in native prairie, pastures, shelterbelts, old fields or orchards, cemeteries, grassy roadsides, and farmyards. Tree and shrub clearing during nesting season, April 1-July 31, may result in the destruction of active nests before young can fly. b. Section 14d, Loggerhead shrike; Tree Removal: Given the potential for this species to be found in the vicinity of the project, tree and shrub removal must be avoided during the breeding season, April 1 through July 31. It is anticipated that tree and shrub removal will occur during the winter months to avoid impacts to the loggerhead shrike. If tree and shrub removal will occur during the active nesting season for the loggerhead shrike, the project proposer will coordinate with the DNR. Pa g e 4 2 1 o f 5 0 3 5 Comment Response Cumulative Potential Effects It is unclear to what extent the development of two or more data centers in the area will increase water demand for the municipal water supply. It is important to evaluate if the cumulative increase in water use will be sustainable to the existing aquifer. The City of Farmington is evaluating their municipal water supply and potential increases in water demands for what is currently being proposed in the comprehensive plan along with any known developments. The City will continue to coordinate with the regulatory agencies for water appropriations for the city. 3. Metropolitan Council Comment Response Item 7 Climate Adaption and Resilience The discussion of anticipated climate trends is adequate; however, many models indicate that while average annual precipitation will increase there will also be an increased frequency and severity of drought events. Staff strongly urges committing to using native plants as they both assist with stormwater management and are more drought tolerant than traditional landscaping. Additionally, low salt design and a chloride management plan should be considered as a project design element to limit the negative impacts of increased freeze thaw cycles, and the potential impacts of the large amounts of impervious surface proposed for scenario 1. The City will continue to encourage the use of native plants within landscaped areas of the site. A chloride management plan will be recommended for any future developments within the AUAR Study Area. Land Use Depending on the scenario pursued and final project designs of platted land, the City may need to amend its adopted 2040 Plan. For Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion south of 225th Street, the City will need amend the 2040 Plan to change existing land uses to allow the proposed industrial and residential land uses. The City will also need to amend the Plan for the staging from outside the MUSA to within the current 2030 MUSA. Comment noted. It has been noted that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will need to be updated based on MUSA and changes in land use. Pa g e 4 2 2 o f 5 0 3 6 Comment Response The Council’s Transportation Analysis Zones database lists Zone #711 adding no households, no population, and +123 jobs during 2020-2040. Should either of the two AUAR scenarios be pursued, the TAZ allocation for employment will need to be revised higher. The City acknowledges in the Draft AUAR that "the City will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council to increase the TAZ allocations, if needed." The City will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council to modify the TAZ allocations, if needed. Water Resources Pa g e 4 2 3 o f 5 0 3 7 Comment Response As stated in the Draft AUAR, the southern portion of the study area is outside of the current MUSA, so sewered development phasing will need to be updated through a comprehensive plan amendment. Scenario 1 includes the development of data centers in the geographic area of interest of the Draft AUAR. The forecasted peak wastewater flow from the future development is expected to be in a range of 0.9 – 2.35 MGD. The Draft AUAR does not identify a specific connection point to the Metropolitan Council’s regional wastewater system. Portions of Interceptor 7103-1, which is the nearest regional sewer to the study area, may be limited in capacity to serve the full development peak wastewater generation rate. It may be necessary to serve the area through the planned interceptor along Biscayne Avenue. The City should reach out to the Wastewater Planning and Community Programs Dept. to plan for sewer service to the study area. Contact John Chlebeck at john.chlebeck@metc.state.mn.us or at 651-602-4527, for additional information. Proposed data center developers under Scenario 1 will be required to obtain an Industrial Discharge Permit, at which time specific wastewater quality and quantity will need to be evaluated for impacts to system capacity, wastewater treatment processes, and wastewater effluent permitting. Depending on actual peak flows and wastewater constituents, additional mitigation may be required, such as pre-treatment, attenuation through wastewater storage, or an alternative surface water or ground infiltration discharge. In addition, Metropolitan Council Waste Discharge Rules prohibit non-contact cooling water from being discharged to the sanitary sewer system, unless it is demonstrated that there is no effective and practical alternative. Developers are encouraged to contact Metropolitan Council’s Industrial Waste and Pollution Prevention group to request a review of proposed cooling water discharges to better understand requirements of a specific project. Please contact Tina Nelson, P.E. at martina.nelson@metc.state.mn.us or at 651-602-4728, for additional information. It is noted that a comprehensive plan update is needed to include the AUAR Study Area within the MUSA. The City will coordinate with Metropolitan Council to understand current capacity in the regional system and potential changes that may be necessary to provide adequate capacity for the anticipated flows. The City has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report will review the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway; a draft of the report has been provided to the Metropolitan Council for review. The City will continue to work with the project proposer and the Metropolitan Council to review additional mitigation measures that may be needed such as pre-treatment, attenuation through wastewater storage, or an alternative surface water or ground infiltration discharge. The project proposer and or developer will coordinate with Metropolitan Council’s Industrial Waste and Pollution Prevention group to request a review of proposed cooling water discharges to better understand requirements of a specific project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pa g e 4 2 4 o f 5 0 3 8 Comment Response The discussion of anticipated Greenhouse Gas Emissions is adequate; however, given the different scale and nature of the two scenarios additional mitigation measures should be considered for scenario 1. Given the larger emissions profile of scenario 1, exceeding the City’s minimum tree planting requirements would be appropriate and would have the additional benefit of mitigating the urban heat island effect created by the large amounts of impervious surfaces associated with that proposal. Scenario 1 should also consider the use of onsite renewable energy generation, i.e. solar panels, to help reduce the amount of off-site electricity needed. Comment noted. The project proposer will work with the City to identify additional mitigation strategies that could be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or offset the carbon footprint of the proposed project. This has been noted in the Final AUAR. 4. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Comment Response Page 9, Table 2: Under Project Design, please revise text to indicate that water efficient design will be incorporated as well (for landscape vegetation choices, landscape irrigation, appliances, equipment). This has been added to the Final AUAR. Page 10, Table 2: Under Water Resources, Adaptations, please revise text indicating that Developer: a) Shall use native plants and perennials for landscaping within water resource buffers. b) Consider using native plants and perennials adjacent to other landscaping areas. This has been added to the Final AUAR. Page 10, Table 2: Under Water Resources, Adaptations, please revise third bullet point to read: “Stormwater BMP's shall be designed to meet City of Farmington criteria for rate control and runoff volume reduction and criteria for MPCA water quality requirements” This has been added to the Final AUAR. Page 14, Table 4: Under Green Infrastructure, please revise text to read “vegetated swales” instead of “swales”. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 19, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization narrative: Eliminate the last sentence beginning with the words “One stream,…” and replace with “A Water Quality Corridor extends through the southern portion of the AUAR study area. This type of waterway classification has specific vegetated buffer or setback requirements that could have an impact to development scenarios evaluated in the AUAR”. Also please remove footnote 12 at bottom of the page. This has been added to the Final AUAR. Pa g e 4 2 5 o f 5 0 3 9 Comment Response Page 20, Farmington Surface Water Management Plan narrative: While the narrative lists requirements associated with Farmington Wetland Ordinance 10-6-17, it does not include the amount of acreage of Protect, Manage 2, and Manage 3 wetlands present onsite in accordance with the Surface Water Management Plan Wetland Classifications Map. A wetland delineation has been completed for the site and included in Appendix A. We suggest updating the table on page 20 to include the acreage of Protect, Manage 2, and Manage 3 wetlands onsite from the completed delineation report. This has been added to the Final AUAR, see Table 10. Page 21: Please eliminate paragraphs for VRWJPO since the AUAR study area is within the City’s jurisdiction. This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 30: The last sentence of paragraph 3 “Approvals related to the VRWJPO Standards will be handled by the City” should be modified to state, “the City has adopted ordinances in conformance with the minimums established by the VRWJPO Standards. As a result, VRWJPO approvals are not required as those requirements will be governed by the City.” This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 39, Wastewater: Suggest adding text at the end of “The Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant” paragraph indicating that "During the development of the Phase 1 Scenario, the developer should consider incorporating water reuse within its operations to reduce this impact on wastewater capacity for the region". This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 42: During Construction: The first sentence, after aquatic ecosystems, should contain the text “per City of Farmington Design Standards”. The remaining bullet points should be eliminated as they appear to be specific to a different project. This has been updated in the Final AUAR Page 43: Fifth sentence. Are there thresholds for the elements described (like cadmium and chromium) that are specific to post construction runoff criteria? Does this statement relate to wastewater discharge? This has been updated in the Final AUAR. Page 43: Language in second paragraph is very specific. Most of this could be eliminated by keeping only the first sentence and the sentence about City of Farmington Guidelines. Please eliminate reference to VRWJPO Guidelines. This has been updated in the Final AUAR Page 68: under Water Resources, please remove “and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization” in the first text table group. For the fourth text table, after the words “wetland banking credits” add “from the wetland bank within the Vermillion River Watershed”. This has been updated in the Final AUAR Pa g e 4 2 6 o f 5 0 3 10 5. Public Comments Comment Response Cathy Johnson Regarding noise at the proposed Data Center site: After reading adaptations which other communities have had to make, regarding data centers, I would like to see Farmington write into the AUAR, what cities like Manassas, Va. have written. In the case of Manassas, VA., it has become city ordinance: • Start and stop time for noisy unloading operations shall happen no earlier than 7:00 AM and no later than 10:00 PM. • Semi-truck deliveries shall not take place during these nighttime hours. This includes deliveries, and pick-up of equipment, trash, etc. • Cooling equipment and generators, or any other noise making equipment which are part of the technology park (data center) operation, are not exempt from noise limits. • At night, noise cannot exceed 50 decibels (10PM through 7AM), as per state law. Day time and night time noise levels, controlled by the MEPA, must be adhered to by all parties of the technology park. • Three sound meters shall be installed at residential lot lines, abutting the data center campus land. One shall be on the east side and one on the west side, of the northern section. One shall be on the northern edge of the southern section. These noise monitors shall be at points where noise is audible. • The noise meters shall be calibrated by the manufacturer and shall have calibration certified once per year. Again, the city needs to be proactive because should this data center come to fruition, multiple end users will get into the blame game, when trying refute source of any noise violations. Comment noted. Noise attenuation measures will be evaluated during project design and additional mitigation measures may be incorporated into project design during the City’s review process to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City standards are followed. Berms: a minimum of 20' berms should be in place prior to sale of parcels and construction of buildings, if proposed technology park becomes a reality. Residents need sound/light protection during the construction phase. Light: light pollution is a complain at the Des moines tech. park and should be addressed. Nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00AM) should be dimly lit. The project will be required to follow all lighting ordinances and standards as identified in City code. Berms and noise and light mitigation measures will be addressed through the City entitlement process. Terri Pearson Pa g e 4 2 7 o f 5 0 3 11 Comment Response If Farmington insists on proceeding with the spot-zoning of the Fountain Hills Golf Course, there are a number of concerns that I would like addressed: 1. The electrical substation needs to be placed in the center of the development. No homeowner should have to look out his/her window at this or listen to the humming. 2. All noise emanating from buildings or traffic needs to be monitored and defined limits set. Who will do this monitoring? 3. This may be the second data center built in Farmington. Water usage must be defined and controlled to prevent the rest of the community from suffering water shortages in dry periods. Those of us who reside in Castle Rock rely on our own wells. Who will be responsible for drilling new wells if data center demands cause problems with ground water access? 4. Some of our homes are very close to the golf course property line. 250 feet is not enough of a setback. The minimum should be 500 feet. 5. All exterior lighting should be directed downward to prevent light pollution for surrounding residences. This is standard practice in Arizona, and should be possible here. Comments not relevant to the AUAR will not be addressed. Rezoning, setbacks, berm height, and buffers will be addressed through the City’s entitlement process. Noise attenuation measures will be evaluated during project design and additional mitigation measures may be incorporated into project design during the City’s review process to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City standards are followed. The City has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report will review the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. If additional capacity is needed in this area of the City, the City of Farmington would complete a well siting study and analysis. The project will be required to follow all lighting ordinances and standards as identified in City code. The project will be required to adhere to the mitigation strategies identified in the AUAR. The City will continue to coordinate with project proposers to minimize and mitigate impacts from development in AUAR Study Area. Dan and Denise May Pa g e 4 2 8 o f 5 0 3 12 We are submitting these comments concerning the Farmington Technology Park Alternative Urban Areawide Review. Our property abuts the golf course property which is currently zoned and platted for residential use by Farmington when it was annexed. Our house and private well are 150 feet from the shared property line. The following are our concerns. 1. Rezoning – we oppose rezoning of the studied property from its recent zoning and current status of residential to mixed use commercial/industrial – for ANY proposed industrial development. We visited the same data centers in Iowa that the Farmington Planning Commission and Council visited. Data centers or any type of industrial development do not belong in residential areas. The buildings of the newer data centers we visited were set back far from the roads that surround them and far more than the 250 feet that Tract is proposing and there are not any homes abutting those properties or even close by. There might be plans for homes in the future near those sites but those residents will choose to live near the data centers. We don’t have that same choice. The buildings on these sites are huge, especially on the Waukee site and again the set back for those buildings are far more than what Tract is proposing. 2. Noise – Noise regulations require a noise level at residential property levels not to exceed 60-65 decibels daytime, 50-55 nighttime. Current noise levels in our residential area are typically less than 40 decibels so the regulation levels are significantly higher than we currently experience. Who will police the noise levels? What happens if the noise levels are exceeded? Will the residents have to bring legal action? Who will pay for that? The data centers we visited in Iowa are set so far back from the road that we could only hear heavy traffic noise, which hovered around 50-60 decibels, we were not able to get close enough to the buildings to hear if there were noise from the buildings or not. Our house is 150 feet from the property line. 3. Water usage – We are concerned about our private well. MN DNR stated previously to the City of Farmington that there is a question as to whether or not there is enough water capacity for all projects in the works. Also, the AUAR states that de-watering may be needed for construction which we are concerned will affect our private well. 4. Lighting – We understand that parking lots and buildings will be well lit because of security concerns. Being so close we are concerned about the illumination onto our property at night. Comments not relevant to the AUAR will not be addressed. Rezoning, setbacks, berm height, buffers, landscaping, siting of facilities within the site, substations, and fencing will be addressed through the City’s entitlement process. Noise attenuation measures will be evaluated during project design and additional mitigation measures may be incorporated into project design during the City’s review process to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City standards are followed. The project will be required to follow all lighting ordinances and standards as identified in City code. Berms and noise and light mitigation measures will be addressed through the City entitlement process. The project will be required to adhere to the mitigation strategies identified in the AUAR. The City will continue to coordinate with project proposers to minimize and mitigate impacts from development in AUAR Study Area. Pa g e 4 2 9 o f 5 0 3 13 Comment Response 5. Power Substations – Tracts plan has power substations located on the perimeter of the property which will create not only additional noise but also an eye sore for anyone living nearby. 6. Construction – Because we live so close to what would be the construction site, we are concerned that there could be potential damage to the structure of our house, private well, or property during site prep. We are concerned about the disruption of our lives during the construction phase which will last as long as it takes to sell off the parcels to end users, which could be years before all the buildings are constructed. 7. Visual Impact – Any industrial building will absolutely change the neighborhood. Buildings 50-80 feet in height will be huge and so out of place next to the residences on three sides of the currently zoned residential property. The 21’ berms shown in the renderings by Tract to show us what the finished technology park would look like from our properties would not be tall enough to mask the tall buildings from view. Also, the landscaping/trees on top of the berms will not grow to the size shown in the renderings for 5-10 years. 8. Land Usage – If the property is rezoned there would be a huge departure of land usage between anything industrial on the currently residentially zoned and platted site and the existing homes that share the property line. The rezoning to industrial would be incompatible with the existing surrounding residential properties. Taylor Salonek Pa g e 4 3 0 o f 5 0 3 14 Comment Response I am writing to you regarding the concerns my family has regarding the proposed technology park in place of the Fountain Valley golf course in Farmington. As you can see by my job title in my email signature I am a big fan of data and it plays a major role in my life. However, I do not believe putting an expansive technology park in the middle of existing neighborhoods is beneficial for the community. I realize you have heard this several times and the plans still seem to move forward, so I would like to know what is being done to hold Tract accountable for what they are promising. Also, what the city is doing to ensure whoever develops on this land does so in a way that is as minimally disruptive to the residents as possible. Here are a few items that come to mind: • Adequate setbacks, berm height and buffers to protect residents from sound and visual impacts • Ensure water consumption, water runoff and electrical use does not have any impact on surrounding residents • Ensure generators and outside lighting are in a location that has as little impact to residents as possible To continue to grow our family in Farmington, we kindly ask that you create binding contracts with tract and whoever develops the land to hold them to the highest standards and ensure they are reprimanded appropriately shall they try to cut corners during the development process. We know this will ultimately provide benefit to Farmington, we just wish it wasn’t going to be our new view out of our living room window. Please take our concerns into consideration and provide a response on what will be done to address them. Comments not relevant to the AUAR will not be addressed. Rezoning and setbacks will be addressed through the City’s entitlement process. Noise attenuation measures will be evaluated during project design and additional mitigation measures may be incorporated into project design during the City’s review process to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City standards are followed. Berms and noise mitigation measures will be addressed through the City entitlement process. The project will be required to adhere to the mitigation strategies identified in the AUAR. The City will continue to coordinate with project proposers to minimize and mitigate impacts from development in AUAR Study Area. Eszter Varga Pa g e 4 3 1 o f 5 0 3 15 I, Eszter Varga, submit the following concerns regarding rezoning request and Technology Park development plans at the following NON-INDUSTRIAL parcels: 1. Fountain Valley Golf Course, 2830 220th St W, Farmington, MN 55024, parcel ID: 140050001012 2. Independent School District 192, south of 225th St W. (annexed from Castle Rock to Farmington), parcel ID: 070050076011 3. Residential lot adjacent to School District 192, parcel ID: 070050076012 DNR expressed concerns about water usage in the area, with consideration of the There are many things to be concerned with and the way this will ultimately impact residents in the surrounding communities: • “Item 12 Water Resources (Roger Janzig Roger.janzig@metc.state.mn.us) The proposed projects and increased wastewater flow generated by the proposed new uses represent an added level of wastewater flow that may exceed the capacity of the existing regional wastewater conveyance system. This situation creates a potential risk of system backups resulting in untreated sewage flowing into basements and spills into the environment. The final AUAR will need to include additional information on potential wastewater flow from the proposed development scenarios to assess impacts on the Regional Wastewater System.” • The reach of the South Branch of the Vermillion River located in the study area is not a designated trout stream, however the AUAR site is upstream of a designated trout stream and impact to this reach will affect the downstream sections. Changes in base flow, chemistry, and temperature can all significantly impact downstream trout habitat. These could be influenced by groundwater wells as well as discharge from future development. Measures to mitigate and monitor to prevent impacts should be taken and it is recommended that DNR Fisheries staff review development plans. • Setbacks- the current 250' setbacks are not adequate to ensure quality of life for the residents. We request a minimum of 500 feet setbacks. Please consider enforcing a serious level of mitigation through setbacks, buffers, berms, and landscape when shoehorning Minnesota’s largest technology park in between RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods. • Berm height needs to be expanded from the current rendering to minimum of 14' and up to 20' heights. Please do not allow ambiguous verbiage of “up to”. • Comments noted. Comments not relevant to the AUAR will not be addressed. Rezoning, setbacks, berm height, buffers, landscaping, siting of facilities within the site will be addressed through the City’s entitlement process. The City has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report will review the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. If additional capacity is needed in this area of the City, the City of Farmington would complete a well siting study and analysis. Noise attenuation measures will be evaluated during project design and additional mitigation measures may be incorporated into project design during the City’s review process to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City standards are followed. Berms and noise and light mitigation measures will be addressed through the City entitlement process. The project will be required to adhere to the mitigation strategies identified in the AUAR. The City will continue to coordinate with project proposers to minimize and mitigate impacts from development in AUAR Study Area. Pa g e 4 3 2 o f 5 0 3 16 Comment Response • Mitigation – landscape & berms to buffer should all be in place on exterior borders before any construction begins to help protect residents from noise and construction dust and ultimately reduce complaints to the city. • Generators What mitigation is offered for residents whose front yard, driveway is impacted by construction on 225th Street West? • & Heat exhaust locations: Requesting guarantee that exhaust fan and generator placements are installed or directed to the inner part of this development, NOT emitting all sound and heat directly at nearby homes. • Light Pollution: Ensure that local residents homes will not be permanently lit up by commercial industrial style lights from this new project. Dave Puchalla Pa g e 4 3 3 o f 5 0 3 17 Dear Member of the City Planning Committee, I am writing to express my strong opposition to both the proposed construction of a data center at the Fountain Valley Golf Course/the Angus property and the associated request for rezoning of the area. It is absolutely unacceptable to rezone residential to mixed-use commercial industrial when it is surrounded by residential property. While I recognize the need for advanced technological infrastructure, the potential negative impacts of this project on our community and environment outweigh the perceived benefits. Negative Impact on the Community: The proposed location for the data center is currently zoned for highway business, low density, low/medium density, and medium density residential. Rezoning this area to accommodate a data center would bring increased traffic, noise, and industrial activity, adversely affecting the quality of life for nearby residents who are located only 250 feet away from the proposed data site. Further evidence of the negative effect is documented by WUSA9 a news station in Washington DC. They took audio samples from 700 feet (450 feet further than proposed in farmington), which verified a perceivable increase in noise. According to their interview with Braxton Boren, assistant professor of audio technology at American University, “You could build a wall, and those wavelengths would by a process called diffraction, they would sort of bend and go right over it. You can't even block them in the normal way that you would with a lot of other sounds.” Residents interviewed by WUSA9 news all complained about the data center noise. Lastly, The CDC warns a noise not loud enough to cause hearing damage can still cause stress, anxiety, and even heart disease when continuously exposed to it. Negative Environmental Concerns: Data centers are notorious for their high energy consumption and significant carbon footprint. As our city strives to meet its sustainability goals and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, endorsing a project that could counteract these efforts seems misaligned with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan section 8 “Sustainability”. The energy demands of a data center are often met by non-renewable sources, which could undermine our commitment to green energy. The City of Farmington owns and operates seven wells, which on average pumps about 835 million gallons from groundwater aquifers. According to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review, the proposed data center “water resources in the general project area may become warmer, more polluted, and change in volume due to increased temperatures and runoff.” Comments not relevant to the AUAR will not be addressed. Rezoning will be addressed through the City’s entitlement process. The City has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report will review the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. If additional capacity is needed in this area of the City, the City of Farmington would complete a well siting study and analysis. Noise attenuation measures will be evaluated during project design and additional mitigation measures may be incorporated into project design during the City’s review process to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City standards are followed. Berms and noise and light mitigation measures will be addressed through the City entitlement process. The project will be required to adhere to the mitigation strategies identified in the AUAR. The City will continue to coordinate with project proposers to minimize and mitigate impacts from development in the AUAR Study Area. Pa g e 4 3 4 o f 5 0 3 18 Comment Response Negative Economic and Social Implications: Although data centers can create temporary construction jobs, long-term positions are typically specialized and may not provide meaningful employment opportunities for local residents. The rezoning and subsequent construction could also lead to decreased property values for the residential areas potentially resulting in gentrification and displacement of long-standing community members. Alternative Solutions: I urge the City Planning Committee to carefully reconsider the need for rezoning and the construction of this data center. Instead, the city should vigorously explore & encourage building residential homes in the existing residential zones; the housing market demands such consideration. The 3 million-square-foot ‘Project Bengal’ industrial project is enough. Additionally, It would be beneficial to explore alternative locations such as the parcels west of Country Road 3 and east of the old Union Pacific railroad (PID: 140180025020, 140070076010, 140180001013). This location is not in established neighborhoods and is near the Cemstone Gravel Pit which is already a source of noise. Industrial zones north of 212th St W between Flagstaff Ave and Pilot Knob Road should be considered. In conclusion, I vehemently protest & strongly oppose both the rezoning request and the construction of the data center. I believe that pursuing alternative approaches will better serve our city’s long-term interests and uphold our commitment to sustainability and community well- being. Let’s keep the farm in Farmington. Thank you for your time and consideration. David Sieburg Pa g e 4 3 5 o f 5 0 3 19 Please ensure this reaches the RGU, Kimley Horn, and all relevant parties as public comment on the AUAR concerning the proposed industrial park or the new Farmington Technology Park project on the golf course and school properties. There are several significant concerns if this project proceeds without the consent of the surrounding neighbors. This development will greatly impact residents in the nearby communities. Rezoning: This area is not suitable for an industrial park or Minnesota’s largest technology park. Please explain how this project fits into the surrounding area and provide guarantees on how it will not negatively impact residents’ quality of life or property values. Noise: Implement a pre-designed plan or fine system to ensure noise levels remain within acceptable limits. The penalties should be stringent enough to compel Tract and/or the end users to use advanced technology to maintain livable sound levels and avoid persistent issues. Setbacks: The current 250-foot setbacks are insufficient to protect residents’ quality of life. A minimum 500-foot setback would allow for additional mitigation if necessary. It is irresponsible and careless to place Minnesota’s largest technology park within 300 feet of homes, families, and children. There are approximately 35 children west of the stop sign on Cambrian Way on 224th St W towards the golf course. Berm Height: The berm height needs to be expanded from the current rendering to have minimum heights, not an “up to” height. Set a requirement for heights between 14 and 20 feet to help shield residents from sound and visual impacts. Natural Buffer: Landscapes, berms, and buffers should be established on exterior borders before construction begins to protect residents from noise and construction dust, ultimately reducing complaints to the city. Trees: Many trees on the golf course are dead or dying as they are at the end of their expected lifespan. This needs to be addressed by the Tract, not the end users. If the Tract is not responsible for providing landscape, buffers, berms, trees, etc., the final result will not match the promises made by them Generators and Heat Exhaust Location: Provide new renderings that ensure exhaust fans and generators are placed or directed towards the inner part of the development, rather than emitting sound and heat towards nearby homes. Lighting: Ensure that local residents’ homes will not be permanently illuminated by commercial industrial lights from this project. Comments not relevant to the AUAR will not be addressed. Rezoning, setbacks, berm height, buffers, landscaping, siting of facilities within the site, substations, fencing, and communication towers will be addressed through the City’s entitlement process. Noise attenuation measures will be evaluated during project design and additional mitigation measures may be incorporated into project design during the City’s review process to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City standards are followed. The City has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report will review the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. If additional capacity is needed in this area of the City, the City of Farmington would complete a well siting study and analysis. The development scenarios discuss the need for stormwater best management practices and the proposed projects will incorporate stormwater management facilities. The project will be required to follow all local, state, and federal stormwater requirements as noted in the AUAR. Pa g e 4 3 6 o f 5 0 3 20 Comment Response Traffic: Limit nighttime truck travel and construction activities. Substation: Relocate the power substation away from residents and ensure it is concealed to avoid being an eyesore. Communication Towers: how many? Where? Proper placement is vital. Water Usage/Water Supply: According to the DNR the excess capacity in the City of Farmington municipal system is already planned to be used for the Farmington West Project Industrial Project (Project Bengal). It seems that the existing water infrastructure will NOT suffice for supplying the high water demands of a data center at this location. Furthermore, DNR technical review of the City of Farmington's water supply (see 11/12/2020 Groundwater Tech Memo in MPARS Permit #1959-0725) shows challenges with sitting new wells in the city, Proximity to the Vermillion River and its protected status as a trout stream, and interconnections among the Prairie du Chene/Jordan, Jordan and quaternary aquifers show that pumping in many areas of the city could be unsustainable. Additionally, there are many private domestic wells located around the city, and especially surrounding the proposed site. It may be difficult to obtain a large increase in water appropriation volume due to the sustainability standard (MN statute 103G.287 subd.5). Wastewater: Clarify where the drainage and runoff will go. It has been stated that the current stormwater system cannot handle this. With limited greenspace after the final build-out, how will you ensure local ponds are not overwhelmed with runoff and that residents won’t experience flooding or damage the Vermillion River. Power Use: is this build out of substations and usage sustainable? Will this project cause residents’ electric bills to increase? I would appreciate a response to each point. If this rezoning proceeds, I hope the City of Farmington will secure concessions and guarantees, not empty promises and assumptions, for the residents most impacted by this potential rezoning. Make sure Tract is held accountable for all of the end users following their “plan.” Thank you for your time. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or for clarification. Jeff Schottler Pa g e 4 3 7 o f 5 0 3 21 Please read through the following list of concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed industrial park or new FarmingtonTechnologypark project on the golf course and school properties. Please see that this gets to the RGU or whomever needs this to be added as public comment on the AUAR. There are many things to be concerned with and the way this will ultimately impact residents in the surrounding communities. - Setbacks- the current 250' setbacks are not adequate to ensure quality of life for the residents. A 500' setbacks would allow for additional mitigation if necessary down the road. To place Minnesotas largest technology park under 300' from homes, families, and choldren is irresponsible and wreckless. Please consider enforcing a serious level of mitigation through setbacks, buffers, birms, and landscape when shoehorning minnesots largest technology park in between neighborhoods. Some of theese homes will be under 300' away from 50' tall buildings, we need protection from this. If we are going to change zoning and allow this why are we not setting a new standard for resident protection. - Birm height- birm height needs to be expanded from the current rendering to minimum of 14' and up to 20' heights. This will help protect residents from sound and visual impacts. - mitigation- landscape, birms, buffers should all be in place on exterior borders before any construction begins to help protect residents from noise and construction dust and ultimately reduce complaints to the city. -generators and heat exhaust location- please provide new renderings which guarantee exhaust fan placement and generator placement to be installed or directed to the inner part of this development vs emitting all sound and heat directly at nearby homes. - lighting- provide and ensure that local residents homes will not be permanently lit up by commercial industrial style lights from this new project. - fencing- define exact plans and location of fencing. Many homes have enjoyed the use of 4'-8' of golfcourse property since it was built because of the golfcourse fence. Do not go into or past the current fence locations. This small area has been part of our yards and maintained by us residents. If tract or whomever comes 6' into my yard to the exact property border its an issue. The current golfcourse fence should be left or replaced in its exact location. We are all giving up a ton to deal with this in our backyards they can give up the continued use of theese areas. Theese areas will be in the buffer zone anyways and makes absolutely no sense to impose more destruction to residents. Comments not relevant to the AUAR will not be addressed. Rezoning, setbacks, berm height, buffers, landscaping, siting of facilities within the site, substations, fencing, and communication towers will be addressed through the City’s entitlement process. The project will be required to follow all lighting ordinances and standards as identified in City code. The project will be required to adhere to the mitigation strategies identified in the AUAR. The City will continue to coordinate with project proposers to minimize and mitigate impacts from development in AUAR Study Area. Noise attenuation measures will be evaluated during project design and additional mitigation measures may be incorporated into project design during the City’s review process to ensure that MPCA noise rules and City standards are followed. The development scenarios discuss the need for stormwater best management practices and the proposed projects will incorporate stormwater management facilities. The project will be required to follow all local, state, and federal stormwater requirements including run-off and temperature control to protect trout within adjacent watersheds. The City has undertaken the Farmington East Serviceability Analysis to address sanitary sewer and water needs to service the updated comprehensive land use for this portion of Farmington. The report will review the need for additional water and sanitary sewer infrastructure to accommodate the land use scenarios identified in the comprehensive plan update that is currently underway. If additional capacity is needed in this area of the City, the City of Pa g e 4 3 8 o f 5 0 3 22 -trees- many of the tress on the golfcourse are dead or will die as they are at the end of their expected life span. This needs to be addressed by tract and not the end users, if tract is permitted to provide none of the landscape, buffers, birms, trees, etc we will never end up with a reality that compares to their renderings. -traffic- limit nighttime truck travel and construction - cooling types- put a written list of approved cooling systems allowed near residential. Microsoft has some amazingly quiet tech parks. Implement and enforce only the newest, best, and quietest types. - substation- relocate power substation away from residents and hide it so that is not the big eyesore of the area. -noise- put some type of pre-designed plan or fine in place ahead of time to guarantee noise decibel levels are never broken. Make this serious enough of a fine or penalty that tract and the end users are forced to use good technology to maintain liveable sound levels and not cause unstoppable issues. -south fork branch Vermillion river- this river is the only river in a suburban area that naturally sustains trout. This is an important river and stream that holds more wildlife than most cities. This needs to be protected and monitored by the DNR. Please show proof that this specific issue has been mentioned to the DNR -rezoning- this area is not compatible for an industrial park or Minnesotas largest technology park. Please shed light on how you think this firs in with the surrounding area and what guarantee you will make to residents on how this will not impact their current quality of life or property values. -WATER- please provide exactly where the water will come from and what the maximum allowable limit for this new industrial park will be. -waste water- where will the drainage and runoff go to. It has been publicly stated that our current storm water system can not handel this. With little greenspace left after final build out how will you guarantee local ponds are not overwhelmed with water run off and that local residents won't flood out from this. -power use- will this cause resident electric bills to increase. Typically the entire community ends up with higher utilities to aid in infrastructure build out. Farmington would complete a well siting study and analysis. Pa g e 4 3 9 o f 5 0 3 23 Comment Response --zoning deviations- no deviations in excess of MUCI zoning should be allowed. Please show how theese deviations provide any benefit to the community. Please show how the largest technology park in Minnesota is good to be less than 300' from a residence. I hope that this gets some serious consideration and I would love a response to each point on here. If we are allowing this rezoning to happen I hope the city of farmington will go to bat for its people and demand mitigation levels that are similar to what I have suggested. This can be done if everyone involved works together. So far it seems like the city and tract are the only ones with a say so we hope this helps guide what residents need to see enforced in order to live the goid life we are used to right here in the Great city of Farmington Minnesota. Thank you for your time and please feel free to reach out with questions or clarity on this if needed. Mark Pearson I don’t believe that rezoning the golf course and the farm land south of it is compatible with the residences that surround it. I don’t believe there are any measures that can be taken to mitigate the disruption in the lives of hundreds of Farmington and Castle Rock residents. There are no other buildings in Farmington that are as expansive or as tall as what is proposed here. If there are benefits to the larger community, besides possible tax revenue, they should be delineated in the AUAR document. There are so many questions about possible construction that have not been defined in this document. There needs to be limits placed on water and electrical consumption by the tenants of this development, as well as air, water, light and noise pollution. Design standards should be established as early as possible relating to all of these issues. Comments not relevant to the AUAR will not be addressed. Rezoning, setbacks, berm height, buffers, landscaping, siting of facilities within the site, substations, fencing, and communication towers will be addressed through the City’s entitlement process. The project will be required to adhere to the mitigation strategies identified in the AUAR. The City will continue to coordinate with project proposers to minimize and mitigate impacts from development in the AUAR Study Area. Pa g e 4 4 0 o f 5 0 3 Appendix F Comment Letters Received Page 441 of 503 Physical Development Division P 952‐891‐7000 F 952‐891‐7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 September 25, 2024 Tony Wippler City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park. Physical Development staff has reviewed and add the following to the July 10, 2024 comment letter (attached). Environmental Resources Section 11.a.: due to the shallow depth to water (measured to be 6 to 8 feet in nearby shallow drivepoint wells before they were sealed), the site’s location within the Hastings wellhead protection area and the DWSMA that is mapped as high vulnerability; chemicals used on the site can impact groundwater. Consider native plantings, adequate thickness of high quality top soil and drought tolerant grass like fescue that will reduce the need for irrigation, lawn care chemicals and fertilizers. Consider winter‐smart design of parking lots to reduce deicing salt and its impacts to aquatic life and water quality. Keep angle of sun in mind to ensure it reaches and melts critical icy patches. Consider the direction of prevailing winter wind to prevent drifting snow, plant trees to create a living snow fence. Implement pavement alternatives such a permeable pavements. Minimized the flow of meltwater across roads and parking lots to mitigate refreezing across roads. Contact Environmental Resources at 952‐891‐7000 or environ@co.dakota.mn.us with questions or for additional information. If you have any questions relating to our comments, please contact me at 952‐891‐7007 or Georg.Fischer@co.dakota.mn.us Sincerely, Georg T Fischer, Director Physical Development Division cc: Commissioner Mike Slavik, District 1 Heidi Welsch, County Manager Page 442 of 503 Physical Development Division P 952‐891‐7000 F 952‐891‐7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 July 10, 2024 Tony Wippler City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN‐55024 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Farmington Technology Park. Physical Development staff has reviewed this scoping document and have the following comments. Environmental Resources The Dakota County Environmental Resources conducted an Environmental Review of the subject area relating to the proposed Draft AUAR for the Farmington Technology Park. The Minnesota Geological Survey recently published an updated Geological Atlas for Dakota County that can be used to answer any subsurface/geology questions that might come up during redevelopment; C‐57, Geologic Atlas of Dakota County, Minnesota. Improvements to Section 11.a. Geology, Soil and Topography/Landforms could state that the first bedrock underlying the AUAR study area is the Shakopee Formation composed of dolomite, sandy dolostone, sandstone and shale. The Shakopee Formation is the upper unit of the Prairie du Chien Group and below that is the Oneota Dolomite. The last sentence “Bedrock is comprised of sandstone and chert.”, does not belong. Section 11.a. states that there are no known sinkholes of unconfined/shallow aquifers located within the AUAR study area. Nearby sealing records, (H3294 and H161799), indicate that drivepoint wells, 1‐1/4 inch in diameter, ranging between 14 to 16 feet deep into the quaternary aquifer are in the neighboring area with static water levels between 6 and 8 feet. In the future Dakota County’s GIS system (DCGIS) can be used to identify wells to complete section 12.a.ii. Groundwater. Directions for using DCGIS can be found at: https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Environment/WaterResources/WellsDrinkingWater/Pages/private‐well‐ information.aspx Environmental Resources staff reviewed any previous audits, historic plat maps, sanborns, historic aerial photography, well construction records, well sealing records and/or well disclosure statements that Dakota County has available for taxpins 140050001012, 070050076012 and 070050076011. Taxpin 140050001012 There are three available well records: W05838, 263614 and W05196. In addition, there is habitation first visible in a 1937 aerial photograph in the SE corner of the parcel. There are no well records located in this area, but the inhabitants would have required a water supply well. o W05838 is an irrigation well drilled in 1997. It was last listed as active in 2011. o 263614 is a Public Supply/Non‐Community well that was last listed as active in 2014. o W05196 is a Public Supply/Non‐Community well that was drilled 1977. Page 443 of 503 Physical Development Division P 952‐891‐7000 F 952‐891‐7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 o 263614 and W05196 are shown as being in the same location and having the same use. These two ID’s may be referring the same well that was given different identifiers over time, or one well may have failed and a replacement well was drilled in the same location. Taxpin 070050076012 There is one available well record W05102 and one well disclosure record. o W05102 is a domestic well that was last listed as active in 1999. A well disclosure describes an in‐ use well that was last listed as active in 2004. The well disclosure may be referring to the same well. Taxpin 070050076011 There are two available well records W05103 and 270148. o W05103 is an irrigation well that was last listed as active in 1999. o 270148 is an irrigation well drilled in 1977. It was last listed as active in 2008. o W05103 and 270148 are shown as being in the same location and having the same use. These two ID’s may be referring the same well that was given different identifiers over time, or one well may have failed and a replacement well was drilled in the same location. If any of the above wells are no longer in use, they must be sealed by a licensed well contractor. Redevelopment crews should be notified of the presence of wells and any wells encountered should be protected from damage and contamination. If any wells are discovered during redevelopment, they should be examined by a licensed well contractor or a Dakota County well inspector to determine the status. A magnetometer is the best, sometimes only way to locate wells that are below grade. Dakota County can help locate and mark wells using a magnetometer by calling 952‐891‐7537. Magnetometers work best on a clear site free from large metal obstructions. A Dakota County well inspector must be present during any well searches to rule out the presence of a well. Information about property transfer requirements in Dakota County as they pertain to wells is on our webpage at https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/HomeProperty/SellingProperty/WellRequirements . Section 13.a. Pre‐project Site Conditions should be expanded to included an environmental investigation of legacy pesticides use on the golf course property. The MN Department of Agriculture has a factsheet at www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/inline‐files/golfcoursecontamination_1.pdf that outlines the concerns for high levels of mercury and arsenic in the soil at golf courses from use of certain pesticides. The factsheet recommends, at a minimum, test soil for arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver and other pesticides applied to the greens and tee boxes as well as collecting water sample at adjacent surface water bodies which can include the wetlands mapped on Figure 9 and the shallow groundwater via temporary environmental borings. Due to the shallow depth to water and the AUAR study area intersecting the Vermillion River, the use of all chemicals including g pesticides and deicing salt should be minimized. Conservation of water is encouraged whether it is for industry, residential or irrigation use. The Draft scoping document states “the AUAR will review the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s In My Neighborhood database and Dakota County’s site inventory to determine if any known contaminated properties or potential environmental hazards are located within and adjacent to the AUAR study area. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment will be completed prior to development.” Known or suspected sites of environmental concern were identified directly adjacent to the subject property. Dakota County Site Inventory identifies Site #9006 – Angus Dump, located adjacent to the southeast corner of the subject property. A limited investigation was conducted in 2004 identifying low level impacts in soil and groundwater at the dump site. Page 444 of 503 Physical Development Division P 952‐891‐7000 F 952‐891‐7031 W www.dakotacounty.us A Dakota County Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Ave. • Apple Valley • MN 55124 Buried debris is present under a thin layer of soil and vegetation. The MPCA WIMN database identifies VIC Site VP19850 at 2806 225th St West. The file indicates reports reviewed and site closed in 2004, refer to MPCA What's in my neighborhood (state.mn.us) website for more information. A Flint Hills Resources pipeline is present south of the subject property. Contact Environmental Resources at 952‐891‐7000 or environ@co.dakota.mn.us with questions or for additional information. Transportation County Transportation staff has determined that the proposed AUAR will have little or no impact to the county road system. If you have any questions relating to our comments, please contact me at 952‐891‐7007 or Georg.Fischer@co.dakota.mn.us Sincerely, Georg T Fischer, Director Physical Development Division cc: Commissioner Mike Slavik, District 1 Thomas V. Novak, Interim County Manager Page 445 of 503 Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services) 390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904 metrocouncil.org An Equal Opportunity Employer September 26, 2024 Tony Wippler, Planning Manager City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: City of Farmington – Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) – Farmington Technology Park Metropolitan Council Review File No. 22985-2 Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Dear Tony Wippler: Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the Farmington Technology Park Draft AUAR to determine its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. The AUAR is approximately 343 acres located on the north and south sides of 255th Street West. The project proposes to redevelop the study area from existing agriculture and golf course uses to data center uses. Staff concludes that the AUAR is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff offers the following comments for your consideration: Item 7 Climate Adaption and Resilience (MacKenzie Young-Walters 651-602-1373) The discussion of anticipated climate trends is adequate; however, many models indicate that while average annual precipitation will increase there will also be an increased frequency and severity of drought events. Staff strongly urges committing to using native plants as they both assist with stormwater management and are more drought tolerant than traditional landscaping. Additionally, low salt design and a chloride management plan should be considered as a project design element to limit the negative impacts of increased freeze thaw cycles, and the potential impacts of the large amounts of impervious surface proposed for scenario 1. Item 10 a. ii. Land Use: Farmington Comprehensive Plan (Patrick Boylan 651-602-1438) Depending on the scenario pursued and final project designs of platted land, the City may need to amend its adopted 2040 Plan. For Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion south of 225th Street, the City will need amend the 2040 Plan to change existing land uses to allow the proposed industrial and residential land uses. The City will also need to amend the Plan for the staging from outside the MUSA to within the current 2030 MUSA. Item 10 Land Use (Todd Graham 651-602-1313) The Council’s Transportation Analysis Zones database lists Zone #711 adding no households, no population, and +123 jobs during 2020-2040. Should either of the two AUAR scenarios be pursued, the TAZ allocation for employment will need to be revised higher. The City acknowledges in the Draft AUAR that "the City will coordinate with the Metropolitan Council to increase the TAZ allocations, if needed." Page 446 of 503 Page - 2 | September 26, 2024 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Item 12 a.i. Surface Water (Steve Christopher 651-602-1033) Council Staff encourages the developer to limit the removal of mature native trees located on the Fountain Valley Golf Course. Where removal cannot be avoided, staff recommend replacement with native tree stands and selecting and installing vegetation for landscaping that is native, draught- tolerant, chloride-tolerant or chloride-friendly. The southern portion of the study area includes the South Branch of the Vermillion River and is subject to the Minnesota Buffer Law (Minn. Stat. § 103F.48) and its requirements for protection. The reach of the South Branch of the Vermillion River located in the study area is not a designated trout stream, however the Draft AUAR site is upstream of a designated trout stream and impact to this reach will affect the downstream sections. Changes in base flow, chemistry, and temperature can all significantly impact downstream trout habitat. These could be influenced by groundwater wells as well as discharge from future development. Measures to mitigate and monitor to prevent impacts should be taken and it is recommended that DNR Fisheries staff review development plans. Item 12 Water Resources – Sanitary Sewers (John Chlebeck, 651-602-4527) As stated in the Draft AUAR, the southern portion of the study area is outside of the current MUSA, so sewered development phasing will need to be updated through a comprehensive plan amendment. Scenario 1 includes the development of data centers in the geographic area of interest of the Draft AUAR. The forecasted peak wastewater flow from the future development is expected to be in a range of 0.9 – 2.35 MGD. The Draft AUAR does not identify a specific connection point to the Metropolitan Council’s regional wastewater system. Portions of Interceptor 7103-1, which is the nearest regional sewer to the study area, may be limited in capacity to serve the full development peak wastewater generation rate. It may be necessary to serve the area through the planned interceptor along Biscayne Avenue. The City should reach out to the Wastewater Planning and Community Programs Dept. to plan for sewer service to the study area. Contact John Chlebeck at john.chlebeck@metc.state.mn.us or at 651-602-4527, for additional information. Proposed data center developers under Scenario 1 will be required to obtain an Industrial Discharge Permit, at which time specific wastewater quality and quantity will need to be evaluated for impacts to system capacity, wastewater treatment processes, and wastewater effluent permitting. Depending on actual peak flows and wastewater constituents, additional mitigation may be required, such as pre- treatment, attenuation through wastewater storage, or an alternative surface water or ground infiltration discharge. In addition, Metropolitan Council Waste Discharge Rules prohibit non-contact cooling water from being discharged to the sanitary sewer system, unless it is demonstrated that there is no effective and practical alternative. Developers are encouraged to contact Metropolitan Council’s Industrial Waste and Pollution Prevention group to request a review of proposed cooling water discharges to better understand requirements of a specific project. Please contact Tina Nelson, P.E. at martina.nelson@metc.state.mn.us or at 651-602-4728, for additional information. Item 18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MacKenzie Young-Walters 651-602-1373) The discussion of anticipated Greenhouse Gas Emissions is adequate; however, given the different scale and nature of the two scenarios additional mitigation measures should be considered for scenario 1. Given the larger emissions profile of scenario 1, exceeding the City’s minimum tree planting requirements would be appropriate and would have the additional benefit of mitigating the urban heat island effect created by the large amounts of impervious surfaces associated with that proposal. Scenario 1 should also consider the use of onsite renewable energy generation, i.e. solar panels, to help reduce the amount of off-site electricity needed. Page 447 of 503 Page - 3 | September 26, 2024 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The Council will not take formal action on the Draft AUAR. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Patrick Boylan, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1438 or via email at Patrick.Boylan@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Wendy Wulff, Metropolitan Council District No. 16 Judy Sventek, Water Resources Manager Patrick Boylan, Sector Representative/ Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Farmington\Letters\Farmington 2024 Farmington Technology Park Draft AUAR Ok 22985-2.docx Page 448 of 503 1 Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email Region 3 Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 September 26, 2024 Tony Wippler Planning Manager City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Tony Wippler, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Farmington Technology Park Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the project area located in Dakota County. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration: 1. Page 9, Table 2. Climate Considerations and Adaptations. As energy needs and renewable energy goals put further pressure on agricultural lands, some communities have started to tap into industrial facilities to combine development with energy production through the use of rooftop solar. Installing solar panels on industrial facilities has the added benefit of producing energy right where it is needed without any additional facility footprint. We encourage the City as well as local energy providers to explore the feasibility of combining these land uses to help meet state climate goals as the City plans for the future. We appreciate that the development would consider installing water reuse systems to reduce water usage. 2. Page 18, Zoning. It is unclear if any of the development is located within shoreland and subject to local shoreland ordinances. 3. Page 25, Geology. The AUAR notes that there are karst conditions located approximately 5,000 feet from the study area. With the proximity of karst conditions, potential pollutants need to be handled with care in order to protect the drinking water of everyone in the area. Studies should determine that any structures on the site will be supported by underlying geologic materials. 4. Page 26, Soils and Topography. This section should discuss the suitability of soils for the infiltration of stormwater. 5. Page 43, Stormwater. We appreciate that the project proposer will implement a chloride management plan for either development scenario. Page 449 of 503 2 6. Page 44, Water Appropriation. A DNR Water Appropriation Permit is required if the water pumped exceeds 10,000 gallons in a day, or one million gallons in one year. The DNR General Permit for Temporary Appropriation, with its lower permit application fee and reduced time for review, may be used for the dewatering if the dewatering volume is less than 50 million gallons and the time of the appropriation is less than one year. The project area is within the Vermillion River Watershed and within the vicinity of designated trout streams, which are protected by the DNR. Additional regulation and review may be required when permitting within five miles of a designated trout stream. 7. Page 44, Water Appropriation. The AUAR references a City of Farmington 2020 water demand of 2.14 MGD, and a Scenario 1 additional water demand of 2.35 MGD. This would more than double the volume the city currently uses (without accounting for potential demand from other proposed data centers). The AUAR Guidance in the instructions states that, “If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.” There is no discussion of the reuse of wastewater in this AUAR other than a brief mention in Table 2. If any additional volume needed would be coming from pumped groundwater, it is likely that there would need to be additional water supply wells, and at a minimum a large increase in total pumping volume compared to what is currently permitted (2.74 MGD). Per instructions, please supply specific information on impacts to groundwater levels and resultant impacts on other resources, including the Vermillion River (both the potential for stream depletion to occur from high-capacity pumping of the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer and its protected status as a trout stream), and interconnections among the Prairie du Chien/Jordan, Jordan, and quaternary aquifers. The siting of a new well would be very important to this analysis. 8. Page 44, Water Appropriation. Evaluation of an amendment to DNR Water Appropriation Permit 1959-0725 must include consideration of the sustainability standard (MN statute 103G.287 Subd.5). As per instructions for completing 12.b.iii, please: a. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures, variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. b. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation. c. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency connections. 9. Page 47, Contaminants. Because the southern portion of the AUAR study area is located within a wellhead protection area (Hastings) and a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) (Hastings, high vulnerability), potential pollutants need to be handled with care in order to protect the drinking water of the city. Page 450 of 503 3 10. Page 48, Rare Features. Please note that if a rare feature is identified within one mile of the project area using a NHIS license agreement, then the project should be submitted to DNR for further coordination. Only DNR can determine if a project is likely to impact state-listed species. a. Section 14c: Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. Loggerhead shrikes use grasslands that contain short grass and scattered perching sites such as hedgerows, shrubs, or small trees. They can be found in native prairie, pastures, shelterbelts, old fields or orchards, cemeteries, grassy roadsides, and farmyards. Tree and shrub clearing during nesting season, April 1- July 31, may result in the destruction of active nests before young can fly. b. Section 14d, Loggerhead shrike; Tree Removal: Given the potential for this species to be found in the vicinity of the project, tree and shrub removal must be avoided during the breeding season, April 1 through July 31. 11. Page 66, Cumulative Potential Effects. It is unclear to what extent the development of two or more data centers in the area will increase water demand for the municipal water supply. It is important to evaluate if the cumulative increase in water use will be sustainable to the existing aquifer. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us CC: Kristin Dean, Tract Management Company, LP Equal Opportunity Employer Page 451 of 503 Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 4100 220th Street West, Suite 103, Farmington, Minnesota 55024 | 952.891.7000 | Fax 952.891.7588 September 11, 2024 Mr. Tony Wippler Planning Manager, City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Farmington Technology Park Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review dated June 2024 The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Farmington Technology Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review June 2024 (AUAR) by Kimley-Horn. Staff has reviewed this scoping document and have the following comments: 1) Page 9, Table 2: Under Project Design, please revise text to indicate that water efficient design will be incorporated as well (for landscape vegetation choices, landscape irrigation, appliances, equipment). 2) Page 10, Table 2: Under Water Resources, Adaptations, please revise text indicating that Developer: a) Shall use native plants and perennials for landscaping within water resource buffers. b) Consider using native plants and perennials adjacent to other landscaping areas. 3) Page 10, Table 2: Under Water Resources, Adaptations, please revise third bullet point to read: “Stormwater BMP's shall be designed to meet City of Farmington criteria for rate control and runoff volume reduction and criteria for MPCA water quality requirements” 4) Page 14, Table 4: Under Green Infrastructure, please revise text to read “vegetated swales” instead of “swales”. 5) Page 19, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization narrative: Eliminate the last sentence beginning with the words “One stream,…” and replace with “A Water Quality Corridor extends through the southern portion of the AUAR study area. This type of waterway classification has specific vegetated buffer or setback requirements that could have an impact to development scenarios evaluated in the AUAR”. Also please remove footnote 12 at bottom of the page. 6) Page 20, Farmington Surface Water Management Plan narrative: While the narrative lists requirements associated with Farmington Wetland Ordinance 10-6-17, it does not include the amount of acreage of Protect, Manage 2, and Manage 3 wetlands present onsite in accordance with the Surface Water Management Plan Wetland Classifications Map. A wetland delineation has been completed for the site and included in Appendix A. We suggest updating the table on page 20 to include the acreage of Protect, Manage 2, and Manage 3 wetlands onsite from the completed delineation report. Page 452 of 503 Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 2 7) Page 21: Please eliminate paragraphs for VRWJPO since the AUAR study area is within the City’s jurisdiction. 8) Page 30: The last sentence of paragraph 3 “Approvals related to the VRWJPO Standards will be handled by the City” should be modified to state, “the City has adopted ordinances in conformance with the minimums established by the VRWJPO Standards. As a result, VRWJPO approvals are not required as those requirements will be governed by the City.” 9) Page 39, Wastewater: Suggest adding text at the end of “The Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant” paragraph indicating that "During the development of the Phase 1 Scenario, the developer should consider incorporating water reuse within its operations to reduce this impact on wastewater capacity for the region". 10) Page 42: During Construction: The first sentence, after aquatic ecosystems, should contain the text “per City of Farmington Design Standards”. The remaining bullet points should be eliminated as they appear to be specific to a different project. 11) Page 43: Fifth sentence. Are there thresholds for the elements described (like cadmium and chromium) that are specific to post construction runoff criteria? Does this statement relate to wastewater discharge? 12) Page 43: Language in second paragraph is very specific. Most of this could be eliminated by keeping only the first sentence and the sentence about City of Farmington Guidelines. Please eliminate reference to VRWJPO Guidelines. 13) Page 68: under Water Resources, please remove “and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization” in the first text table group. For the fourth text table, after the words “wetland banking credits” add “from the wetland bank within the Vermillion River Watershed”. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this AUAR. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Jeff Dunn Travis Thiel VRWJPO Water Resources Engineer VRWJPO Administrator Kelly Perrine VRWJPO Senior Watershed Specialist Page 453 of 503 Page 454 of 503 1 From: Cathy Johnson <cathyij50@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 1:11 PM To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Public response to AUAzr Berms: a minimum of 20' berms should be in place prior to sale of parcels and construction of buildings, if proposed technology park becomes a reality. Residents need sound/light protection during the construction phase. Light: light pollution is a complain at the Des moines tech. park and should be addressed. Nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00AM) should be dimly lit. Thank you, Cathy Page 455 of 503 Pa g e 4 5 6 o f 5 0 3 Pa g e 4 5 7 o f 5 0 3 1 From: Denise May <cdmay@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2024 11:22 PM To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL]AUAR PLEASE CONFIRM THAT THIS EMAIL WAS RECEIVED. THANK YOU. Mr. Wippler, We are submitting these comments concerning the Farmington Technology Park Alternative Urban Areawide Review. Our property abuts the golf course property which is currently zoned and platted for residential use by Farmington when it was annexed. Our house and private well are 150 feet from the shared property line. The following are our concerns. 1.Rezoning – we oppose rezoning of the studied property from its recent zoning and current status of residential to mixed use commercial/industrial – for ANY proposed industrial development. We visited the same data centers in Iowa that the Farmington Planning Commission and Council visited. Data centers or any type of industrial development do not belong in residential areas. The buildings of the newer data centers we visited were set back far from the roads that surround them and far more than the 250 feet that Tract is proposing and there are not any homes abutting those properties or even close by.There might be plans for homes in the future near those sites but those residents will choose to live near the data centers. We don’t have that same choice. The buildings on these sites are huge, especially on the Waukee site and again the set back for those buildings are far more than what Tract is proposing. 2.Noise – Noise regulations require a noise level at residential property levels not to exceed 60- 65 decibels daytime, 50-55 nighttime. Current noise levels in our residential area are typically less than 40 decibels so the regulation levels are significantly higher than we currently experience. Who will police the noise levels? What happens if the noise levels are exceeded? Will the residents have to bring legal action? Who will pay for that? The data centers we visited in Iowa are set so far back from the road that we could only hear heavy traffic noise, which hovered around 50-60 decibels, we were not able to get close enough to the buildings to hear if there were noise from the buildings or not.Our house is 150 feet from the property line. 3.Water usage – We are concerned about our private well. MN DNR stated previously to the City of Farmington that there is a question as to whether or not there is enough water capacity Page 458 of 503 2 for all projects in the works. Also, the AUAR states that de-watering may be needed for construction which we are concerned will affect our private well. 4.Lighting – We understand that parking lots and buildings will be well lit because of security concerns. Being so close we are concerned about the illumination onto our property at night. 5.Power Substations – Tracts plan has power substations located on the perimeter of the property which will create not only additional noise but also an eye sore for anyone living nearby. 6.Construction – Because we live so close to what would be the construction site, we are concerned that there could be potential damage to the structure of our house, private well, or property during site prep. We are concerned about the disruption of our lives during the construction phase which will last as long as it takes to sell off the parcels to end users, which could be years before all the buildings are constructed. 7.Visual Impact – Any industrial building will absolutely change the neighborhood. Buildings 50- 80 feet in height will be huge and so out of place next to the residences on three sides of the currently zoned residential property. The 21’ berms shown in the renderings by Tract to show us what the finished technology park would look like from our properties would not be tall enough to mask the tall buildings from view. Also, the landscaping/trees on top of the berms will not grow to the size shown in the renderings for 5-10 years. 8.Land Usage – If the property is rezoned there would be a huge departure of land usage between anything industrial on the currently residentially zoned and platted site and the existing homes that share the property line. The rezoning to industrial would be incompatible with the existing surrounding residential properties. Dan and Denise May 22265 Berring Ave Farmington, MN. 55024 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS TO: ITSUPPORT@FARMINGTONMN.GOV Page 459 of 503 1 From: Salonek, Taylor <Taylor.Salonek@ampf.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 3:42 PM To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL]AUAR Public Comments & Concerns Good Afternoon Tony, I am writing to you regarding the concerns my family has regarding the proposed technology park in place of the Fountain Valley golf course in Farmington. As you can see by my job title in my email signature I am a big fan of data and it plays a major role in my life. However, I do not believe putting an expansive technology park in the middle of existing neighborhoods is beneficial for the community. I realize you have heard this several times and the plans still seem to move forward, so I would like to know what is being done to hold Tract accountable for what they are promising. Also, what the city is doing to ensure whoever develops on this land does so in a way that is as minimally disruptive to the residents as possible. Here are a few items that come to mind: ·Adequate setbacks, berm height and buffers to protect residents from sound and visual impacts ·Ensure water consumption, water runoff and electrical use does not have any impact on surrounding residents ·Ensure generators and outside lighting are in a location that has as little impact to residents as possible To continue to grow our family in Farmington, we kindly ask that you create binding contracts with tract and whoever develops the land to hold them to the highest standards and ensure they are reprimanded appropriately shall they try to cut corners during the development process. We know this will ultimately provide benefit to Farmington, we just wish it wasn’t going to be our new view out of our living room window. Please take our concerns into consideration and provide a response on what will be done to address them. Kindly your Calico Ct Resident, Taylor Salonek Data Scientist Manager | Enterprise Data, Analytics and Insights Pronouns:she/her .................................. Ameriprise Financial 10887 Ameriprise Financial Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55474 Page 460 of 503 2 ****************************************************************************** “This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply email, or call, and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.” ****************************************************************************** CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS TO: ITSUPPORT@FARMINGTONMN.GOV Page 461 of 503 1 From: Eszter Varga <esztervarga@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 5:17 PM To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL]AUAR Feedback and Concerns Importance: High I, Eszter Varga, submit the following concerns regarding rezoning request and Technology Park development plans at the following NON-INDUSTRIAL parcels: 1.Fountain Valley Golf Course, 2830 220th St W, Farmington, MN 55024, parcel ID: 140050001012 2.Independent School District 192, south of 225th St W. (annexed from Castle Rock to Farmington), parcel ID: 070050076011 3.Residential lot adjacent to School District 192, parcel ID: 070050076012 DNR expressed concerns about water usage in the area, with consideration of the There are many things to be concerned with and the way this will ultimately impact residents in the surrounding communities: ·“Item 12 Water Resources (Roger Janzig Roger.janzig@metc.state.mn.us ) The proposed projects and increased wastewater flow generated by the proposed new uses represent an added level of wastewater flow that may exceed the capacity of the existing regional wastewater conveyance system. This situation creates a potential risk of system backups resulting in untreated sewage flowing into basements and spills into the environment. The final AUAR will need to include additional information on potential wastewater flow from the proposed development scenarios to assess impacts on the Regional Wastewater System.” ·The reach of the South Branch of the Vermillion River located in the study area is not a designated trout stream, however the AUAR site is upstream of a designated trout stream and impact to this reach will affect the downstream sections. Changes in base flow, chemistry, and temperature can all significantly impact downstream trout habitat. These could be influenced by groundwater wells as well as discharge from future development. Measures to mitigate and monitor to prevent impacts should be taken and it is recommended that DNR Fisheries staff review development plans. ·Setbacks-the current 250' setbacks are not adequate to ensure quality of life for the residents. We request a minimum of 500 feet setbacks. Please consider enforcing a serious level of mitigation through setbacks, buffers, berms, and landscape when shoehorning Minnesota’s largest technology park in between RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods. ·Berm height needs to be expanded from the current rendering to minimum of 14' and up to 20' heights. Please do not allow ambiguous verbiage of “up to”. ·Mitigation – landscape & berms to buffer should all be in place on exterior borders before any construction begins to help protect residents from noise and construction dust and ultimately reduce complaints to the city. Page 462 of 503 2 ·Generators What mitigation is offered for residents whose front yard, driveway is impacted by construction on 225th Street West? ·& Heat exhaust locations: Requesting guarantee that exhaust fan and generator placements are installed or directed to the inner part of this development, NOT emitting all sound and heat directly at nearby homes. ·Light Pollution: Ensure that local residents homes will not be permanently lit up by commercial industrial style lights from this new project. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS TO: ITSUPPORT@FARMINGTONMN.GOV Page 463 of 503 1 From: David J Puchalla <soccerguy2009@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 11:03 PM To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL]Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) David Puchalla 3263 224th St W Farmington, MN 55024 soccerguy2209@gmail.com 719-393-5569 26 September 2024 City Planning Committee 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Member of the City Planning Committee, I am writing to express my strong opposition to both the proposed construction of a data center at the Fountain Valley Golf Course/the Angus property and the associated request for rezoning of the area. It is absolutely unacceptable to rezone residential to mixed-use commercial industrial when it is surrounded by residential property. While I recognize the need for advanced technological infrastructure, the potential negative impacts of this project on our community and environment outweigh the perceived benefits. Negative Impact on the Community: The proposed location for the data center is currently zoned for highway business, low density, low/medium density, and medium density residential. Rezoning this area to accommodate a data center would bring increased traffic, noise, and industrial activity, adversely affecting the quality of life for nearby residents who are located only 250 feet away from the proposed data site. Further evidence of the negative effect is documented by WUSA9 a news station in Washington DC. They took audio samples from 700 feet (450 feet further than proposed in farmington), which verified a perceivable increase in noise. According to their interview with Braxton Boren, assistant professor of audio technology at American University, “You could build a wall, and those wavelengths would by a process called diffraction, they would sort of Page 464 of 503 2 bend and go right over it. You can't even block them in the normal way that you would with a lot of other sounds.” Residents interviewed by WUSA9 news all complained about the data center noise. Lastly, The CDC warns a noise not loud enough to cause hearing damage can still cause stress, anxiety, and even heart disease when continuously exposed to it. Negative Environmental Concerns: Data centers are notorious for their high energy consumption and significant carbon footprint. As our city strives to meet its sustainability goals and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, endorsing a project that could counteract these efforts seems misaligned with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan section 8 “Sustainability”. The energy demands of a data center are often met by non-renewable sources, which could undermine our commitment to green energy.The City of Farmington owns and operates seven wells, which on average pumps about 835 million gallons from groundwater aquifers. According to the Alternative Urban Areawide Review, the proposed data center “water resources in the general project area may become warmer,more polluted, and change in volume due to increased temperatures and runoff.” Negative Economic and Social Implications: Although data centers can create temporary construction jobs, long-term positions are typically specialized and may not provide meaningful employment opportunities for local residents. The rezoning and subsequent construction could also lead to decreased property values for the residential areas potentially resulting in gentrification and displacement of long-standing community members. Alternative Solutions: I urge the City Planning Committee to carefully reconsider the need for rezoning and the construction of this data center. Instead, the city should vigorously explore & encourage building residential homes in the existing residential zones; the housing market demands such consideration. The 3 million- square-foot ‘Project Bengal’ industrial project is enough. Additionally, It would be beneficial to explore alternative locations such as the parcels west of Country Road 3 and east of the old Union Pacific railroad (PID: 140180025020, 140070076010, 140180001013). This location is not in established neighborhoods and is near the Cemstone Gravel Pit which is already a source of noise. Industrial zones north of 212th St W between Flagstaff Ave and Pilot Knob Road should be considered. In conclusion, I vehemently protest &strongly oppose both the rezoning request and the construction of the data center. I believe that pursuing alternative approaches will better serve our city’s long-term interests and uphold our commitment to sustainability and community well-being. Let’s keep the farm in Farmington. Thank you for your time and consideration. Page 465 of 503 3 Sincerely, David Puchalla Veteran, Major, US Air Force CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS TO: ITSUPPORT@FARMINGTONMN.GOV Page 466 of 503 1 From: David <davidsieburg@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 2:24 PM To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL]AUAR comment Tony, Please ensure this reaches the RGU, Kimley Horn, and all relevant parties as public comment on the AUAR concerning the proposed industrial park or the new Farmington Technology Park project on the golf course and school properties. There are several significant concerns if this project proceeds without the consent of the surrounding neighbors. This development will greatly impact residents in the nearby communities. Rezoning: This area is not suitable for an industrial park or Minnesota’s largest technology park. Please explain how this project fits into the surrounding area and provide guarantees on how it will not negatively impact residents’ quality of life or property values. Noise: Implement a pre-designed plan or fine system to ensure noise levels remain within acceptable limits. The penalties should be stringent enough to compel Tract and/or the end users to use advanced technology to maintain livable sound levels and avoid persistent issues. Setbacks: The current 250-foot setbacks are insufficient to protect residents’ quality of life. A minimum 500-foot setback would allow for additional mitigation if necessary. It is irresponsible and careless to place Minnesota’s largest technology park within 300 feet of homes, families, and children. There are approximately 35 children west of the stop sign on Cambrian Way on 224th St W towards the golf course. Berm Height: The berm height needs to be expanded from the current rendering to have minimum heights, not an “up to” height. Set a requirement for heights between 14 and 20 feet to help shield residents from sound and visual impacts. Natural Buffer: Landscapes, berms, and buffers should be established on exterior borders before construction begins to protect residents from noise and construction dust, ultimately reducing complaints to the city. Trees: Many trees on the golf course are dead or dying as they are at the end of their expected lifespan. This needs to be addressed by the Tract, not the end users. If the Tract is not responsible for providing landscape, buffers, berms, trees, etc., the final result will not match the promises made by them Generators and Heat Exhaust Location: Provide new renderings that ensure exhaust fans and generators are placed or directed towards the inner part of the development, rather than emitting sound and heat towards nearby homes. Lighting: Ensure that local residents’ homes will not be permanently illuminated by commercial industrial lights from this project. Traffic: Limit nighttime truck travel and construction activities. Substation: Relocate the power substation away from residents and ensure it is concealed to avoid being an eyesore. Communication Towers: how many? Where? Proper placement is vital. Page 467 of 503 2 Water Usage/Water Supply: According to the DNR the excess capacity in the City of Farmington municipal system is already planned to be used for the Farmington West Project Industrial Project (Project Bengal). It seems that the existing water infrastructure will NOT suffice for supplying the high water demands of a data center at this location. Furthermore, DNR technical review of the City of Farmington's water supply (see 11/12/2020 Groundwater Tech Memo in MPARS Permit #1959-0725) shows challenges with sitting new wells in the city, Proximity to the Vermillion River and its protected status as a trout stream, and interconnections among the Prairie du Chene/Jordan, Jordan and quaternary aquifers show that pumping in many areas of the city could be unsustainable. Additionally, there are many private domestic wells located around the city, and especially surrounding the proposed site. It may be difficult to obtain a large increase in water appropriation volume due to the sustainability standard (MN statute 103G.287 subd.5). Wastewater: Clarify where the drainage and runoff will go. It has been stated that the current stormwater system cannot handle this. With limited greenspace after the final build-out, how will you ensure local ponds are not overwhelmed with runoff and that residents won’t experience flooding or damage the Vermillion River. Power Use: is this build out of substations and usage sustainable? Will this project cause residents’ electric bills to increase? I would appreciate a response to each point. If this rezoning proceeds, I hope the City of Farmington will secure concessions and guarantees, not empty promises and assumptions, for the residents most impacted by this potential rezoning. Make sure Tract is held accountable for all of the end users following their “plan.” Thank you for your time. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or for clarification. Sincerely, David Sieburg 224th St W Farmington, MN 55024 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS TO: ITSUPPORT@FARMINGTONMN.GOV Page 468 of 503 1 From: Jeff Schottler <schottler2@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 11:00 AM To: Tony Wippler <twippler@farmingtonmn.gov> Cc: Joshua Hoyt <JHoyt@farmingtonmn.gov>; Steve Wilson <swilson@farmingtonmn.gov>; Lynn Gorski <lgorski@farmingtonmn.gov>; Holly Bernatz <hbernatz@farmingtonmn.gov>; Nick Lien <nlien@farmingtonmn.gov>; Katie Bernhjelm <kbernhjelm@farmingtonmn.gov>; Jared Johnson <jjohnson@farmingtonmn.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL]AUAR Review public comment Hi Tony, Please read through the following list of concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed industrial park or new FarmingtonTechnologypark project on the golf course and school properties. Please see that this gets to the RGU or whomever needs this to be added as public comment on the AUAR. There are many things to be concerned with and the way this will ultimately impact residents in the surrounding communities. -Setbacks- the current 250' setbacks are not adequate to ensure quality of life for the residents. A 500' setbacks would allow for additional mitigation if necessary down the road. To place Minnesotas largest technology park under 300' from homes, families, and choldren is irresponsible and wreckless. Please consider enforcing a serious level of mitigation through setbacks, buffers, birms, and landscape when shoehorning minnesots largest technology park in between neighborhoods. Some of theese homes will be under 300' away from 50' tall buildings,we need protection from this. If we are going to change zoning and allow this why are we not setting a new standard for resident protection. -Birm height- birm height needs to be expanded from the current rendering to minimum of 14' and up to 20' heights. This will help protect residents from sound and visual impacts. -mitigation- landscape, birms, buffers should all be in place on exterior borders before any construction begins to help protect residents from noise and construction dust and ultimately reduce complaints to the city. -generators and heat exhaust location- please provide new renderings which guarantee exhaust fan placement and generator placement to be installed or directed to the inner part of this development vs emitting all sound and heat directly at nearby homes. -lighting- provide and ensure that local residents homes will not be permanently lit up by commercial industrial style lights from this new project. Page 469 of 503 2 -fencing- define exact plans and location of fencing. Many homes have enjoyed the use of 4'-8' of golfcourse property since it was built because of the golfcourse fence. Do not go into or past the current fence locations. This small area has been part of our yards and maintained by us residents. If tract or whomever comes 6' into my yard to the exact property border its an issue. The current golfcourse fence should be left or replaced in its exact location. We are all giving up a ton to deal with this in our backyards they can give up the continued use of theese areas. Theese areas will be in the buffer zone anyways and makes absolutely no sense to impose more destruction to residents. -trees- many of the tress on the golfcourse are dead or will die as they are at the end of their expected life span. This needs to be addressed by tract and not the end users, if tract is permitted to provide none of the landscape, buffers, birms, trees, etc we will never end up with a reality that compares to their renderings. -traffic- limit nighttime truck travel and construction -cooling types- put a written list of approved cooling systems allowed near residential. Microsoft has some amazingly quiet tech parks. Implement and enforce only the newest, best, and quietest types. -substation- relocate power substation away from residents and hide it so that is not the big eyesore of the area. -noise- put some type of pre-designed plan or fine in place ahead of time to guarantee noise decibel levels are never broken. Make this serious enough of a fine or penalty that tract and the end users are forced to use good technology to maintain liveable sound levels and not cause unstoppable issues. -south fork branch Vermillion river- this river is the only river in a suburban area that naturally sustains trout. This is an important river and stream that holds more wildlife than most cities. This needs to be protected and monitored by the DNR. Please show proof that this specific issue has been mentioned to the DNR -rezoning- this area is not compatible for an industrial park or Minnesotas largest technology park. Please shed light on how you think this firs in with the surrounding area and what guarantee you will make to residents on how this will not impact their current quality of life or property values. -WATER- please provide exactly where the water will come from and what the maximum allowable limit for this new industrial park will be. -waste water- where will the drainage and runoff go to. It has been publicly stated that our current storm water system can not handel this. With little greenspace left after final build out how will you guarantee local ponds are not overwhelmed with water run off and that local residents won't flood out from this. -power use- will this cause resident electric bills to increase. Typically the entire community ends up with higher utilities to aid in infrastructure build out. Page 470 of 503 3 --zoning deviations- no deviations in excess of MUCI zoning should be allowed. Please show how theese deviations provide any benefit to the community. Please show how the largest technology park in Minnesota is good to be less than 300' from a residence. I hope that this gets some serious consideration and I would love a response to each point on here. If we are allowing this rezoning to happen I hope the city of farmington will go to bat for its people and demand mitigation levels that are similar to what I have suggested. This can be done if everyone involved works together. So far it seems like the city and tract are the only ones with a say so we hope this helps guide what residents need to see enforced in order to live the goid life we are used to right here in the Great city of Farmington Minnesota. Thank you for your time and please feel free to reach out with questions or clarity on this if needed. Jeff Schottler Schottler2@gmail.com 651-248-0329 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE REPORT SUSPICIOUS EMAILS TO: ITSUPPORT@FARMINGTONMN.GOV Page 471 of 503 Pa g e 4 7 2 o f 5 0 3 Pa g e 4 7 3 o f 5 0 3 REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator From: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager Department: Community Development Subject: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the Properties Commonly Known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and Angus Properties 2. Rezoning of the Fountain Valley Golf Course and Property Formerly Known as the Angus Property from B-1 (Highway Business), R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Low/Medium Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), P/OS (Park/Open Space), and A-1 (Agriculture) to MUCI (Mixed-Use Commercial/Industrial) - Kimley-Horn 3. Preliminary Plat, and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Farmington Technology Park - MNLCO Farmington, LLC & MNLCO Farmington Two, LLC (Tract) Meeting: Regular Council - Nov 04 2024 INTRODUCTION: MNLCO Farmington, LLC & MNLCO Farmington Two, LLC (together known as Tract) and City of Farmington is seeking review and approval of the following requests and applications: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the properties commonly known as the Fountain Valley Golf Course and Angus properties. 2. Rezoning of the properties commonly known as the Fountain Valley Golf Course and Angus properties. 3. Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Farmington Technology Park The proposed Farmington Technology Park consists of three parcels, those being: Fountain Valley Golf Course (PID# 14-00500-01-012) owned by Bryce and Carole Olson; Former Angus property (PID#'s 07-00500-76-011 & 07-00500-76-012) owned by Independent School District 192 All properties are currently under contract by Tract with the intent to re-guide, rezone and plat the properties to facilitate the development of a master-planned data center campus. DISCUSSION: Page 474 of 503 Comprehensive Plan Amendments The City of Farmington is seeking to amend the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a guiding document for the City and is an expression of the City's vision for the future. Changes and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan do occur as permitted by State law. The request is as follows: PID# 14-00500-01-012 – This subject property is currently home to the Fountain Valley Golf Course and is addressed as 2830 220th Street W. The request is to amend the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Development Staging for this property. The Land Use Plan would be changed from a mixture of Commercial, Low Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, proposed The (Commercial/Industrial). to Mixed-Use Open / Park and Space amendment also includes changing the anticipated development staging from Post 2040 to 2020- 2030. This parcel consists of approximately 160 acres. PID#’s 07-00500-76-012 and 07-00500-76-011 (Angus properties) – These parcels are currently owned by Independent School District 192 and are addressed as 2806 225th Street W. The amendment for these parcels includes adding them to the 2020 MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area), amending the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan from Non-Designated to Mixed-Use (Commercial/Industrial), 2020-2030 staging development the these parcels including and in timeframe. These parcels were annexed into the City in accordance with the approved Orderly Annexation Agreement that is in place between the City and Castle Rock Township. The order approving the annexation was given by the State of Minnesota on April 24, 2024. Because of the recent annexation these parcels have a non-designated land use guidance. These parcels consist of approximately 189 total acres. Rezoning Request The first petition for rezone is for the properties identified with the PID #'s 07-00500-76-011 and 07- 00500-76-012 (Angus properties). Due to the recent annexation, a rezoning of these parcels is appropriate. Per Section 10-4-3 of the City Code, "Land areas which may be added to the City by annexation, merger or other means shall be classified A-1 agriculture until such time that the City Council may rezone the added territory to more appropriate classifications." The requested rezone for these parcels is from A-1 (Agriculture) to MUCI (Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial). The second petition for rezone is for the Fountain Valley Golf Course property. The current zoning of this property is a mixture of B-1 (Highway Business), R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Low/Medium Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and P/OS (Park and Open Space). The requested rezone for this parcel is from B-1 (Highway Business), R-1 (Low Density Density Residential), R-2 (Low/Medium Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Residential) and P/OS (Park/Open Space) to MUCI (Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial). The proposed rezoning was completed in compliance with Section 10-3-12 of the city code and would align with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment described above. Data centers are listed as a permitted use in the MUCI zoning district. Farmington Technology Park Preliminary Plat Page 475 of 503 The Farmington Technology Park plat consists of 3 lots spread over 342.81 acres of land. A description of the proposed lots is as follows: Lot 1, Block 1 - 155.20 acres, northern portion of data center campus Lot 2, Block 1 - 2.07 acres, to be deeded to the city for utility purposes Lot 1, Block 2 - 185.54 acres, southern portion of data center campus. This lot is also encumbered with approximately 69 acres of floodplain. A 75-foot-wide Drainage & Utility, Roadway and Trail easement is provided along the eastern boundary of Lot 1, Block 1. This easement will preserve a portion of the future Dakota County Biscayne Avenue corridor. This roadway will not be constructed as part of this project. Representative Site Plan Attached is a site plan that shows how the parcels could be developed. This is just a representative site plan, which is subject to change, as an end user has not yet been secured. The development is seeking approval as a Planned Unit Development in which certain minimum and maximum development standards including, but not limited to, setbacks, building height, screening, etc., will be established that will be required to be met upon an end user constructing facilities on site. Future site plans will be required to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the construction of any data center building and ancillary use on site to ensure compliance with the standards approved in the planned unit development. (Site plan information required for review includes, but not limited to, setbacks, parking, lighting, building elevations, grading and stormwater plan, landscaping, etc.) The representative site plans provides up to 12 data center buildings and 2 administrative buildings, with each lot having 6 data center buildings and 1 administrative building. The square footage of data centers shown on the northern campus site is 1,600,400 square feet and 933,800 square feet on the southern campus. This is a representative site plan only; the finished design elements will be determined at time of site plan. The buildings shown on the representative site plan show a setback of at least 250 feet from all property lines. The previously mentioned development standards address the minimum required setbacks which will be substantially greater than generally allowed in the MUCI (Mixed-Use Commercial/Industrial) zoning district, which are as follows: Front yard setback: 0 feet - no requirement Side yard setback: 0 feet - no requirement Rear yard setback: 20 feet In addition to providing greater building setbacks, Tract is proposing the addition of a natural buffer area along the majority of the boundary of the site. This buffer would be 40 feet in width as measured from the property line. The intent of the buffer is to retain as many existing and healthy trees as practical. Additional berming will also be placed within this natural buffer area to create additional screening and visual aesthetics. Both the north and south campuses will include perimeter fencing up to 14 feet in height and will be located outside of the 40-foot natural buffer area. Page 476 of 503 Two areas are shown (one on each lot) as "Reserved for Future Utilities" on the representative site plan, these would be the potential locations for electric substations. Transportation and Parking There are 4 anticipated accesses for the campuses. For the northern campus, this includes one off of MN 50 (220th Street W) and one off of 225th Street W. For the southern campus, the anticipated accesses come from 225th Street W and Biscayne Avenue. Off-street parking will be required to be provided on site. Per the proposed development standards, which are attached, 1 parking space will be provided for each 1,000 square foot of office space on site. Parking spaces are not required for the designated data hall areas. The development standards do provide language that may allow for the parking requirement to be modified based on a parking study to be provided at time of site plan and/or building permit application. Parks, Trails and Sidewalk The City will take cash in lieu of park dedication with this plat application. Due to the nature of data centers and the need for site security no additional sidewalks will be required with this development. As previously mentioned, the eastern 75 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 will have a Drainage & Utility, Roadway & Trail easement to secure a portion of the future right-of-way for Biscayne Avenue. A trail would be constructed within this easement if and when Biscayne Avenue is constructed by Dakota County. Please note, Biscayne Avenue is a County Road. Additional trails will be required along the boundary of the golf course property with the final plat. Preliminary Planned Unit Development The subject properties are proposed to be rezoned to MUCI (Mixed-Use Commercial / Industrial) and be approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). With the PUD application, Tract is proposing The site. the to specific proposed be standards development certain approved development standards are attached for your reference and include the following: 1. Setbacks - provides standards for the minimum setback of buildings from property lines. This includes a minimum setback of 250 feet from any property line adjacent to residential uses; 150-foot setback from any property line not adjacent to non-residential uses; 40 foot setback from the right-of-way of 225th Street W. As previously mentioned, the MUCI district allows for front and side yard setbacks of 0 feet and rear yard setbacks of 20 feet. The minimums proposed in the PUD far exceed these requirements. 2. Natural Buffers - provides for the 40-foot-wide natural buffer along the majority of the perimeter of the site. 3. Landscaping - provides for types of planting that will be used throughout the site; allows for the use of rock, gravel or mulch as an accent material for maintenance areas adjacent to buildings or around utility access points; provides standards for landscaping of parking lots. 4. Easement for Future County Road - provides language regarding the future improvements within the easement. 5. General Design Standards (i.e., facade standards, screening requirements) - provides language that provides protection from undifferentiated surfaces on principal building facades by requiring the use of at least 2 of the following design elements: change in building height, building step-backs (projections or recesses), fenestration, changes in Page 477 of 503 building materials (pattern, texture, color), use of accent material, overhangs, use of canopies or porticos, arcades, and variations in the roof line. Provides language regarding the screening of both ground level (including substations) and above ground mounted mechanical equipment and structures. 6. Building Height - Maximum building height on site for a principal structure is 80 feet. However, the maximum height at the building setback line is 50 feet. The provision allows for a step back approach to building height. For each one-foot increase in building height, the building must be stepped back two feet. Maximum building height for accessory structure is 50 feet. 7. Fence Height - allows for fencing up to 14 feet in height. 8. Electric Utility Lines - provides language on the need for electric utility lines and their construction as part of a data center project. 9. Noise - provides language that all noise generated from the site shall meet the requirements as established by the MPCA. Provides language that a noise study be prepared at time of site plan that demonstrates the applicable noise levels will not be exceeded based on the specific requiring language Provides used. be the that equipment and systems will installation of physical sound attenuation measures on any mechanical equipment that is installed at a data center building located within 1,200 feet of any adjacent residential use under certain circumstances. 10. Parking - requires a minimum of 1 parking space for each 1,000 square feet of office use. 11. Substations exemption from MUCI - states that substations shall be exempt from the design regulations of the MUCI zoning district but that these facilities must be fenced and screened. 12. Private Communication Towers - provides language that these are permitted up to a maximum height of 80 feet. 13. Maximum Lot Coverage - provides language that there is no maximum lot coverage for all uses built in the designated "developable area”. If the PUD is approved any developer of this property would be required to abide by these design standards. Any deviation from these standards would require an amendment be approved by the City. The above-mentioned rezonings, preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development will be contingent upon approval of the comprehensive plan amendment being approved by the City Council and, ultimately, the Metropolitan Council. Planning Commission Review Plat Preliminary of approval recommended Commission reviewed Planning The and and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Farmington Technology Park along with the rezoning of the parcels at the September 10, 2024 regular Planning Commission meeting with a vote of 5-0. Additionally, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendments at the October 8, 2024 regular Planning Commission meeting with a vote of 4-0. BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable ACTION REQUESTED: By separate actions approve the following: Page 478 of 503 1. for Amendments Plan Comprehensive the Adopting 2024-98 Resolution Adopt the Properties Commonly Known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus Properties and Authorize the Submittal of the Amendments to the Metropolitan Council. 2. Adopt Ordinance 2024-11 Rezoning the Properties Commonly Known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus Properties. 3. Adopt Resolution 2024-99 approving the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Planned Unit Development for the Farmington Technology Park. ATTACHMENTS: 2024-0813 Farmington Technology Park PUD Plan Set 2024-0813 Farmington Technology Park Site Concept Exhibits 2024-0813 Tract PUD Development Standards Updated 2024-98 Amending the 2040 Comp Plan 2024-11 Amending Title 10 Zoning Ordinance Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus Properties 2024-99 Preliminary Plat and PUD - Farmington Tech Park Resolution Tract's PUD Development Standards Version 4 for CC Hearing 11.4.24 Page 479 of 503 Pl o t t e d B y : Ca r l s o n , R y a n S h e e t S e t : Fa r m i n g t o n T e c h n o l o g y P a r k L a y o u t : CO V E R S H E E T Au g u s t 1 3 , 2 0 2 4 0 2 : 3 2 : 0 8 p m K: \ T W C _ L D E V \ T r a c t M a n a g e m e n t \ M N \ O l s o n - F a r m i n g t o n \ 2 D e s i g n \ C A D \ P l a n S h e e t s \ E n t i t l e m e n t \ C 1 C o v e r S h e e t . d w g 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 08/13/2024 CO V E R S H E E T PROJECT TEAM CLIENT: MNLCO FARMINGTON, LLC & MNLCO FARMINGTON TWO, LLC 3300 EAST 1ST AVENUE DENVER, CO 80206 CONTACT: KRISTIN DEAN TEL: (303) 276-7947 EMAIL: KRISTIN.DEAN@TRACT.COM CIVIL ENGINEER: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 767 N EUSTIS ST #100 ST PAUL, MN 55114 CONTACT: ALAN CATCHPOOL, P.E. TEL: (651) 393-6164 EMAIL: ALAN.CATCHPOOL@KIMLEY-HORN.COM SURVEYOR: EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC. 475 OLD HIGHWAY 8 NORTHWEST NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112 CONTACT: ERIC ROESER, L.S. TEL: (612) 466-3379 EMAIL: EROESER@EFNSURVEY.COM LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE UTILITY AND GOVERNING AGENCY CONTACTS COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: CITY OF FARMINGTON 430 3RD STREET FARMINTON, MN 55024 TEL: (651) 280-6800 CONTACT: DEANNA KUENNEN PLANNING MANAGER: CITY OF FARMINGTON 430 3RD STREET FARMINTON, MN 55024 TEL: (651) 280-6800 CONTACT: TONY WIPPLER ELECTRIC: DAKOTA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION TEL: (651) 463-6212 GREAT RIVER ENERGY TEL: (800) 481-4700 NATURAL GAS: MINNESOTA ENERGY RESOURCES TEL: (800) 889-9508 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER: CITY OF FARMINGTON 430 3RD STREET FARMINGTON, MN 64078 TEL: (651) 280-6800 CONTACT: JOHN POWELL, PE PRELIMINARY PLAT / PUD PLANS FOR FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 113 NORTH, RANGE 19 WEST CITY OF FARMINGTON, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROJECT AREA: 342.81 AC PROJECT LOCATION 220TH ST W VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION BI S C A Y N E A V E MI N N E S O T A S T A T E H I G H W A Y 3 225TH ST W 230TH ST W NORTH NORTH C1 1. SETBACKS: a.ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL USES: 250-FEET b.ADJACENT TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES: 150-FEET c.FROM THE 75' EASEMENT DEDICATION ON THE EAST SIDE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1: 175-FEET d.ADJACENT TO LOT 2 (WATER STORAGE TANK): 0-FOOT FROM INTERNAL PROPERTY LINES WITHIN THE OVERALL PUD. APPLICABLE MUCI SETBACKS SHALL APPLY TO PROPERTY LINES NOT ADJACENT TO THE PUD. e.ADJACENT TO MN 225: 40-FEET f.ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 3 AND THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 3 NORTH TO THE DESIGNATED FLOOD ZONE: 40-FEET g.GENERATORS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ARE EXEMPT FROM THE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 2. NATURAL BUFFERS: A NATURAL BUFFER OF 40 FEET FROM ALL PERIMETER PROPERTY LINES, EXCEPT FOR THOSE LISTED BELOW, IS ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS PUD: a.EXISTING, HEALTHY TREES SHALL BE RETAINED IN THE NATURAL BUFFER, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT PRACTICABLE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 10-6-11 OF THE FARMINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE. UTILITIES, LANDSCAPING, AND BERMS MAY BE LOCATED IN THE NATURAL BUFFER. PERIMETER FENCING, SECURITY GATES, AND GUARD BUILDINGS SHALL BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE NATURAL BUFFER. WHERE THERE ARE NO EXISTING TREES IN THE NATURAL BUFFER THAT QUALIFY FOR PRESERVATION UNDER SECTION 10.6.11 ET.AL OF THE FARMINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE, THEN STORMWATER FEATURES MAY BE LOCATED IN THE NATURAL BUFFER PROVIDED THEY ARE ADEQUATELY LANDSCAPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE FARMINGTON MUNICIPAL CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR. b.EXCEPTIONS: i. ADJACENT TO MN 225 ii. ADJACENT TO LOT 2: ONLY THE EASTERN MOST PROPERTY LINE SOUTH OF THE 40-FOOT NATURAL BUFFER ADJACENT TO MN 220TH AND ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OUTSIDE OF THE 150' SETBACK ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 1. 3.. LANDSCAPING: a.DROUGHT TOLERANT, NATIVE PLANTS SHALL BE UTILIZED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. b.ROCK, GRAVEL, AND/OR MULCH MAY ALSO BE USED AS AN ACCENT MATERIAL FOR MAINTENANCE AREAS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A BUILDING, AROUND UTILITY ACCESS POINTS (I.E. MANHOLES, CONTROL VALVES, AND HAND HOLES), OR IN MECHANICAL AREAS. c.WHERE PARKING AREAS ARE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 300 FEET FROM A PUBLIC ROAD OR RESIDENTIAL USE, AND THE PARKING AREA IS SCREENED BY THE BUILDING LOCATION, PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED. HOWEVER, END ISLANDS OF PARKING AISLES THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC STREET OR RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL BE LANDSCAPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 10.16.10(D)8(E). d.BERMS MAY BE ALLOWED UP TO 10-FEET IN HEIGHT FROM EXISTING GRADE IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE MORE AESTHETIC VISUAL FEATURES INTO THE SITE. 4. EASEMENT FOR FUTURE COUNTY ROAD: AS SET FORTH IN MORE DETAIL IN THE FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AG 75-FEET ACCESS, UTILITY, AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF BISCAYNE AVE. WEST ADJACENT TO LOT 1. PRIVATE UTILITIES MAY ALSO BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE EASEMENT. PUBLIC UTILITIES, ACCESS, AND THE PUBLIC TRAIL MAY NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL SUCH TIME THE EASEMENT IS DEDICATED AS ROW TO THE COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 5. GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS: a.PRINCIPAL BUILDING FACADES WILL MEET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: i. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE TERM “PRINCIPAL BUILDING FACADES” SHALL INCLUDE ALL BUILDING FACADES SUBSTANTIALLY VISIBLE TO ABUTTING PUBLIC ROADS OR ADJACENT TO PLANNED OR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. ii. PRINCIPAL BUILDING FACADES SHALL AVOID THE USE OF UNDIFFERENTIATED SURFACES BY INCLUDING AT LEAST TWO (2) OF THE FOLLOWING DESIGN ELEMENTS: ·CHANGE IN BUILDING HEIGHT ·BUILDING STEP-BACKS, PROJECTIONS OR RECESSES ·FENESTRATION ·CHANGES IN BUILDING MATERIAL, PATTERN, TEXTURE, COLOR ·USE OF ACCENT MATERIAL ·OVERHANGS ·CANOPIES OR PORTICOS ·ARCADES ·VARIATIONS IN THE ROOF LINE iii. WHEN A BUILDING HAS MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL FACADE, SUCH FACADES SHALL BE CONSISTENT IN THEIR DESIGN, MATERIALS, DETAILS, AND TREATMENTS. b.SCREENING OF BUILDING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITY SUBSTATIONS. i. GROUND-LEVEL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, SUBSTATIONS OR ACCESSORY USES (NOT INCLUDING PARKING AREAS) THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND/OR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WILL BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW USING ONE OR MULTIPLE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS OF SCREENING: - A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. - EXISTING VEGETATION THAT WILL REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY, OR NEW, PLANTED VEGETATION (EX. EVERGREENS OR SHRUBS) THAT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT COVERAGE TO SCREEN FROM PUBLIC VIEW. - A VISUALLY SOLID FENCE, SCREEN WALL OR PANEL, OR OTHER VISUALLY SOLID SCREEN THAT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS THAT ARE MATCHING OR CONSISTENT IN STYLE, COLOR AND/OR TEXTURE WITH THOSE USED IN THE EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH SLATS IS NOT PERMITTED TO SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT. ii. ABOVE-GROUND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES WILL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PUBLIC STREETS AND RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. iii. ANY MECHANICAL UNITS PLACED ON THE ROOFTOPS OF BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM ADJACENT PUBLIC STREETS AND RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS BY ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE WITH BUILDING FAÇADE ARCHITECTURE. THE METHOD OF SCREENING SHALL BE PROVIDED AND REVIEWED WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REVIEW OF THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS. THE SCREENING OF ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE OVERALL HEIGHT LIMITATION. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THE ROOF WHERE FEASIBLE. iv. ALL BUILDINGS ARE EXEMPT FROM ANY EXISTING OF FUTURE CITY REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL ROOF-MOUNTED SOLAR EQUIPMENT. 6. BUILDING HEIGHT: MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES IS 80 FEET. HOWEVER, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE IS 50 FEET. FOR EACH ONE-FOOT INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT, THE BUILDING MUST BE STEPPED BACK TWO FEET. a.MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IS 50 FEET. 7. FENCE HEIGHT: MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT OF 14 FEET. 8. ELECTRIC UTILITY LINES: a.DATA CENTERS ARE TYPICALLY FED POWER FROM THE UTILITY'S TRANSMISSION SYSTEM DIRECTLY TO THE DATA CENTER SITE. DEPENDING ON THE UTILITY, TRANSMISSION VOLTAGE IS TYPICALLY 69KV OR GREATER. TRANSMISSION LINES ARE TYPICALLY INSTALLED OVERHEAD FOR SAFETY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS. b.PERMANENT DISTRIBUTION LINES ON DATA CENTER CAMPUSES ARE TYPICALLY INSTALLED UNDERGROUND. c.TEMPORARY OVERHEAD POWER DISTRIBUTION LINES FOR CONSTRUCTION POWER WILL LIKELY BE INSTALLED ABOVE-GROUND. IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED HOW CONSTRUCTION POWER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OR SERVED. TEMPORARY LINES, WHICH LOOK LIKE STANDARD UTILITY DISTRIBUTION LINES, PROVIDE POWER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND THE SUPPORT OF BUILDING OPERATIONS. THESE LINES SHALL REMAIN IN USE UNTIL THE PERMANENT UNDERGROUND SERVICE FROM THE ON-SITE SUBSTATION IS OPERATIONAL, AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. THE TEMPORARY DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT MAY BE REROUTED TO SERVE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SITES OR REMOVED ALTOGETHER BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY. d.THE TRANSITION FROM THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IS A SWITCHING STATION/SUBSTATION, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE ON THE DATA CENTER SITE. THE SWITCHING STATION / SUBSTATION IS AN INTEGRAL USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DATA CENTER OPERATIONS. 9. NOISE: a.NOISE GENERATED FROM THE SITE SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY. b.PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A NOISE STUDY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE APPLICABLE NOISE LEVELS WILL NOT BE EXCEEDED. c.IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING, APPLICANT AGREES TO INSTALL PHYSICAL SOUND ATTENUATION ON ANY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GROUND SUPPORTED BARRIERS, EARTHEN BERMS, MECHANICAL SCREENING OR OTHER ATTENUATION TECHNIQUES AS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN SUBSEQUENT SOUND STUDIES) THAT IS INSTALLED AT A DATA CENTER BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN 1,200 FEET OF ANY ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USE AND THAT IS EITHER (I) INSTALLED ON THE ROOFTOP OF SUCH BUILDING OR (II) THAT IS INSTALLED ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF SUCH DATA CENTER BUILDING AND DIRECTLY FACING SUCH ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES, IN EACH CASE UNLESS A NOISE STUDY DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS NO INCREMENTAL NOISE FROM SUCH MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AS A RESULT OF THE FOREGOING INSTALLATION LOCATIONS. 10. PARKING: 1 PARKING SPACE / 1,000 SF OF OFFICE USE. PARKING SPACES ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR DESIGNATED DATA HALL AREAS. MINIMUM PARKING MAY BE MODIFIED BASED ON A PARKING STUDY PROVIDED WITH A SITE PLAN OR BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATION, AS APPLICABLE. 11. SUBSTATIONS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE DESIGN REGULATIONS OF THE MUCI ZONING DISTRICT. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE HOUSED IN MECHANICAL YARDS THAT ARE FENCED AND SCREENED. a.THE PROPERTY MAY HAVE OUTDOOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT OF SIZE (NOT TO EXCEED THE AGGREGATE BUILDING FOOTPRINT), NUMBER, VOLUME, AND LOCATION TO SUFFICIENTLY SERVE THE BUILDINGS AND BE IN RELATIONAL PROXIMITY TO THE BUILDINGS. 12. PRIVATE COMMUNICATION TOWERS ARE PERMITTED UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 80 FEET. 13. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF ALL USES: THERE IS NO MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR ALL USES BUILT IN THE DESIGNATED “DEVELOPABLE AREA”. PUD STANDARDS - MUCI Sheet List Table Sheet Number Sheet Title C1 COVER SHEET C2 EXISTING CONDITIONS C3 PRELIMINARY PLAT C4 LAND USE PLAN C5 DRAINAGE PLAN C6.0 PHASE 1 EROSION CONTROL NORTH LOT C6.1 PHASE 1 EROSION CONTROL SOUTH LOT C7 SCHEMATIC UTILITY PLAN Pa g e 4 8 0 o f 5 0 3 © 2024 Microsoft Corporation © 2024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS PO W PO W O-POW O-POW O-POW O-POW O-POW O-POW O-POW O-POW O-POW O-POW BUILDING FOOTPRINTAREA = 4,032 SQ. FT. POLE BARN 24" PVCIE=895.3 24" PVCIE=895.9 RE=910.4 RE = 9 0 7 . 9 RE = 9 0 5 . 6 IE = ( D E B R I S ) RE = 9 0 7 . 9 RE=909.1 IE=(DEBRIS) 15" CMP IE=(BLOCKED) 15" CMPIE=920.0 18" CMPIE=914.0 18" CMP IE=(BLOCKED) 24" CMPIE=912.2 24" CMPIE=912.0 15" CMPIE=895.6 15" CMPIE=895.0 30 . 4 36.6 30 . 6 36.3 12 . 3 4 . 1 42 . 6 4.13.112 . 1 17.5 12 . 6 2 . 6 13.43.64.04 . 0 18.5 57 . 3 63.5 40 . 2 100.1 40 . 3 100.3 24 . 3 24.2 23 . 9 24.2 46.6 2 2 . 1 22.1 5 0 . 0 24.3 7 2 . 2 64.1 39 . 8 63.9 40 . 0 64 . 2 31.9 63 . 9 31.8 14.010 . 2 14.1 10 . 4 21 . 9 25.921 . 9 26.1 13.8 17 . 9 14.018 . 2 32 . 1 24.3 31 . 3 24.8 72 . 0 40.0 71 . 9 40.1 BUILDING HEIGHT20.4 FEET COMMITMENT NO. CP72878 - ITEM 10 10 FOOT WIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EASEMENT PER DOCUMENT NO. 1659225 COMMITMENT NO. CP72878 - ITEM 10 10 FOOT WIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS EASEMENT PER DOCUMENT NO. 1659225 POST VENT PIPE RISER ABOVE GROUND PIPING SOUTH BRANCH VERMILLION RIVER SOUTH BRA N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R SOUTH BR A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R 900 905 91 0 91 5 920 9 0 0 90 0 90 5 9 0 5 9 1 0 910 9 1 5 91 5 92 0 920 900 905 897 897 89 8 898 898 898 899 899 901 902 903 90 4 906 907 908 905 905 910 915 920 925 930 920 920 920 916917918 919 919 91 9 921 921 92 1 921 9 0 5 9 1 0 9 1 5 92 0 9 2 2 923 924 92 0 91691791 8 919 915 914 905 910 915 920 905 910 915 920 925 9 0 6 90 7 9 0 8 905 903904906 PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYP.) EXIST. OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EXIST. OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EXIST. BUILDING EXIST. ASPHALT PARKING & DRIVE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN (FLOOD ZONE AE) EXIST. BUILDING EXIST. CULVERT EXIST. GRAVEL ROAD 66 . 0 ' R/ W 80 . 0 ' R/ W 90 . 0 ' R / W 66 . 0 ' R/ W 66.0' R/W BI S C A Y N E A V E N U E 230TH STREET WEST 220TH STREET WEST 225TH STREET WEST EXIST. BUILDING SOUTH BRANCH VERMILLION RIVER 224TH STREET WEST CA L H O U N C O U R T CA N T O N C O U R T CANTON CIRCLE BE R R I N G A V E N U E FRESHWATER POND FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND FRESHWATER POND FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND FRESHWATER FORESTED AND EMERGENT WETLAND EXIST. WELL LOCATION 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 07/11/2024 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 07/11/2024 NORTH 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 300 150 300 600 C2 1.The orientation of this bearing system is based on the Dakota County coordinate grid (NAD 83-2011 Adj.). 2.The legal description and easement information used in the preparation of this survey is based on the Commitment for Title Insurance prepared by Commercial Partners Title as agent for Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Commitment No. CP72878 dated December 19, 2023 at 7:00 am and Commitment No. CP73107 dated December 22, 2023 at 7:00 am. 3.The surveyed property has direct access to 220th Street West, 225th Street West and Biscayne Avenue, all being public right of ways. 4.No evidence of cemeteries, burial grounds or gravesites was observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork. 5.This survey shows only those Improvements visible during the field survey, some structures and improvements covered by ice and snow, or underground may not be shown. SURVEY NOTES Per Commitment No. CP72878: The Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 113 North, Range 19 West, Except Parcel 12 shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 19-162, filed June 15, 2016, as Document No. 3132934, and by Trustee Deed dated August 19, 2016, filed October 4, 2016, as Document No. 3153717. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property AND Per Commitment No. CP73107 Supplement No. 1: Parcel 1: That part of the Southeast Quarter and that part of the East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 5, Township 113 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5; thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the North line thereof, 123.00 feet for the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 34 seconds East, parallel with the East line of said Southeast Quarter, 412.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, 123.00 feet to the East line of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 34 seconds East, along said East line, 1706.57 feet to the Northeast corner of the South 528.00 feet of the East 299.00 feet of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 06 seconds West, 299.01 feet to the Northwest corner of said South 528.00 feet of the East 299.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 34 seconds East, 528.01 feet to the Southwest corner of said South 528.00 feet of the East 299.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 06 seconds West, along the South line of said Section 5, a distance of 3016.53 feet to the Southwest corner of the East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 5; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds West, along the West line of said East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter, 2123.51 feet to the Southwest corner of the North 528.00 feet of the West 412.50 feet of said East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, along the South line of said North 528.00 feet of the West 412.50 feet, a distance of 412.52 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds West, along the East line thereof, 231.01 feet to the South line of the North 297.00 feet of the South Half of said Section 5; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, along said South line, 474.73 feet to the Southeast corner of the North 297.00 feet of the East 97.84 feet of the West 221.83 feet of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5 (said point also being on the West line of the East 1089.00 feet of the West 1310.83 feet of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5); thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East, along said West line, 103.00 feet to the Southwest corner of the North 400.00 feet of the East 1089.00 feet of the West 1310.83 feet of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, along the South line of said North 400.00 feet of the East 1089.00 feet of the West 1310.83 feet, a distance of 1089.03 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds West, along the East line thereof, 400.01 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, along the North line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5, a distance of 1215.29 feet to the point of beginning. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 2: The North 400.00 feet of the East 1089.00 feet of the West 1310.83 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 113 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property LEGAL DESCRIPTION AIR CONDITIONERAC CATCH BASINOR COMMUNICATION BOXC CO CLEAN OUT ELECTRIC BOX GATE VALVE HYDRANT MANHOLE UTILITY POLE POWER POLE WITH LIGHT FO FIBER OPTIC SIGN SIGN TELEPHONE SIGNTEL W WELL GUY WIRE SANITARY MANHOLES CHAIN LINK FENCE WIRE FENCEXXX WOOD FENCE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICE OVERHEAD WIREOHW SANITARY SEWERS STORM SEWERSS WATERMAINW EXISTING CONTOUR LINE TREELINE CULVERT UNDERGROUND TELECOMMUNICATIONTC MAILBOX BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE GRAVEL SURFACE UNDERGROUND GASG H HANDHOLE GAS METER LIGHT PAVER SURFACE EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND 928 FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K EX I S T I N G CO N D I T I O N S Flood Zone X-Other Flood Areas Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood Flood Zone AE Base Flood Elevations determined Floodway Areas in Zone AE The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights FLOODPLAIN LEGEND Pa g e 4 8 1 o f 5 0 3 SOUTH BRANCH VERMILLION RIVER SOUTH BRA N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R SOUTH BR A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R N0°11'14"W 2295.41' S89°46'38"E 354.77' S0°13'22"W 24.00'S89°46'38"E 594.00' N0°13'22"E 17.00' S89°46'38"E 1398.63' S0 ° 1 5 ' 3 4 " E 37 9 . 0 0 ' S89°44'58"E 89.99' S0 ° 1 5 ' 3 5 " E 17 0 6 . 6 2 ' N89°50'06"W 266.01' S0 ° 1 5 ' 3 4 " E 52 8 . 0 1 ' N89°50'06"W 3016.53' N0 ° 1 4 ' 3 8 " W 21 2 3 . 5 1 ' S89°44'58"E 412.52' N0°14'38"W 231.01' S89°44'58"E 474.73' N0 ° 1 1 ' 1 6 " W 26 4 . 0 1 ' S89°44'59"E 2304.36' 220TH STREET WEST 225TH STREET WEST BI S C A Y N E A V E N U E 230TH STREET WEST 10' EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS EASEMENT 10' EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS EASEMENT 66' EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 66' EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY (WEST 33' TO BE DEDICATED) 224TH STREET WEST CA L H O U N C O U R T CA N T O N C O U R T CANTON CIRCLE BE R R I N G A V E N U E LOT 1, BLOCK 1 TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 155.20 AC TOTAL EASEMENT AREA = 4.46 AC LOT 1, BLOCK 2 TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 185.54 AC LOT 2, BLOCK 1 (TO BE DEDICATED) TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 2.07 AC 75' PROPOSED DRAINAGE & UTILITY, ROADWAY & TRAIL EASEMENT S89°46'38"E 300.00' N0°11'32"W 300.00' S89°46'38"E 300.00' N0°11'32"W 300.00' N89°44'58"W 2649.13' N0°13'38"W 2589.70' S0°13'38"E 2589.70' I (INDUSTRIAL) R-1 ( RESIDENTAL) MUCI MUCI MUCI I ( I N D U S T R I A L ) P/OS (PARKS/OPEN SPACE) RR-1 ( RESIDENTAL) RR-1 ( RESIDENTAL) AG (AGRICULTURE) RR - 1 ( R E S I D E N T A L ) RR-1 ( RESIDENTAL) CO M / I (C O M M E R C I A L / I N D U S T R I A L ) MUCI 80 . 0 ' R/ W 90 . 0 ' R/ W 66 . 0 ' R/ W AG (AGRICULTURE)AG (AGRICULTURE) 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 08/13/2024 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 300 150 300 600 NORTH PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K LEGEND PROPOSED EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 113 NORTH, RANGE 19 WEST CITY OF FARMINGTON, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA C3 Per Commitment No. CP72878: The Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 113 North, Range 19 West, Except Parcel 12 shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 19-162, filed June 15, 2016, as Document No. 3132934, and by Trustee Deed dated August 19, 2016, filed October 4, 2016, as Document No. 3153717. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property AND Per Commitment No. CP73107 Supplement No. 1: Parcel 1: That part of the Southeast Quarter and that part of the East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter, all in Section 5, Township 113 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5; thence North 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the North line thereof, 123.00 feet for the point of beginning; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 34 seconds East, parallel with the East line of said Southeast Quarter, 412.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, 123.00 feet to the East line of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 34 seconds East, along said East line, 1706.57 feet to the Northeast corner of the South 528.00 feet of the East 299.00 feet of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 06 seconds West, 299.01 feet to the Northwest corner of said South 528.00 feet of the East 299.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 15 minutes 34 seconds East, 528.01 feet to the Southwest corner of said South 528.00 feet of the East 299.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 50 minutes 06 seconds West, along the South line of said Section 5, a distance of 3016.53 feet to the Southwest corner of the East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 5; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds West, along the West line of said East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter, 2123.51 feet to the Southwest corner of the North 528.00 feet of the West 412.50 feet of said East Half of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, along the South line of said North 528.00 feet of the West 412.50 feet, a distance of 412.52 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 00 degrees 14 minutes 38 seconds West, along the East line thereof, 231.01 feet to the South line of the North 297.00 feet of the South Half of said Section 5; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, along said South line, 474.73 feet to the Southeast corner of the North 297.00 feet of the East 97.84 feet of the West 221.83 feet of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5 (said point also being on the West line of the East 1089.00 feet of the West 1310.83 feet of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5); thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds East, along said West line, 103.00 feet to the Southwest corner of the North 400.00 feet of the East 1089.00 feet of the West 1310.83 feet of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, along the South line of said North 400.00 feet of the East 1089.00 feet of the West 1310.83 feet, a distance of 1089.03 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 00 degrees 11 minutes 16 seconds West, along the East line thereof, 400.01 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence South 89 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds East, along the North line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 5, a distance of 1215.29 feet to the point of beginning. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 2: The North 400.00 feet of the East 1089.00 feet of the West 1310.83 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 113 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1 & Lot 2, Block 1, FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK, Dakota County, Minnesota Lot 1, Block 2, FARMINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK, Dakota County, Minnesota PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AREA SUMMARY Lot 1, Block 1: 155.20 Acres 6,760,512 Square Feet Lot 2, Block 1: 185.54 Acres 8,082,118 Square Feet Lot 1, Block 2:2.07 Acres 90,000 Square Feet Total:342.81 Acres 14,932,630 Square Feet LAND AREA FOR EACH USE: SEE AREA SUMMARY TABLE (THIS SHEET). PROPOSED CODE MODIFICATION TABLE: SEE PUD STANDARDS SUMMARY (SHEET C1). NUMBER OF UNITS: TO BE DETERMINED. SEE SEE REPRESENTATIVE SITE PLAN EXHIBITS. NUMBER OF AREAS OF COMMON OPEN SPACE: SEE LAND USE PLAN FOR OVERALL AND DEVELOPABLE AREAS (SHEET C4). PHASING PLAN: TO BE DETERMINED. WILL BE BASED ON END USERS TIMELINE. SUMMARY TABLE Pa g e 4 8 2 o f 5 0 3 USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND FLOOD ZONE AE BI S C A Y N E A V E N U E 230TH STREET WEST 220TH STREET WEST 225TH STREET WEST 224TH STREET WEST CA L H O U N C O U R T CA N T O N C O U R T CANTON CIRCLE LOT 1, BLOCK 2 TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 185.54 AC DEVELOPABLE AREA = 89.91 AC LOT 1, BLOCK 1 TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 155.20 AC DEVELOPABLE AREA = 115.72 AC FLOOD ZONE AE BE R R I N G A V E N U E LOT 2, BLOCK 1 (TO BE DEDICATED) TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 2.07 AC 150.0' 250.0' 40 . 0 ' 40.0' 40.0' 150.0' 25 0 . 0 ' 40 . 0 ' 250.0' 250.0' 150.0' 40.0' 25 0 . 0 ' 250.0' 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN SOUTH BRANCH VERMILLION RIVER 60.0' RESERVED FOR FUTURE UTILITIES 250.0' 150.0' 40 . 0 ' ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMENT PER DOCUMENT NO. 2952196 40.0' PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT BOUNDARY 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 40' NATURAL BUFFER 40' NATURAL BUFFER 40' NATURAL BUFFER 40' NATURAL BUFFER I (INDUSTRIAL) R-1 (RESIDENTAL) I ( I N D U S T R I A L ) P/OS (PARKS/OPEN SPACE) RR-1 (RESIDENTAL) AG (AGRICULTURE) RR - 1 ( R E S I D E N T A L ) RR-1 (RESIDENTAL) CO M / I (C O M M E R C I A L / I N D U S T R I A L ) MUCI - DATA CENTER MUCI - DATA CENTER WATER TOWER MUCI RESERVED FOR FUTURE UTILITIES 60.0' 75' PROPOSED DRAINAGE & UTILITY, ROADWAY & TRAIL EASEMENT (4.46 AC) AG (AGRICULTURE) AG (AGRICULTURE) RR-1 (RESIDENTAL) CITY CASTLE ROCK TOWNSHIP CITY CASTLE ROCK TOWNSHIP EMPIRE TOWNSHIP 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 08/13/2024 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 300 150 300 600NORTH LA N D U S E P L A N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K LEGEND 80' TALL BUILDING SETBACK DEVELOPMENT AREAS USACE JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN C4 NATURAL BUFFER PROPOSED ACCESS LOCATION BUILDING DATA MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 80 FT ** PARKING SUMMARY REQUIRED PARKING 1 PER 1,000 SF OF OFFICE TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING TBD PROPERTY LINE 60.0' ** BUILDING HEIGHT IS TO BE 50 FEET AT THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE. FOR EVERY ONE FOOT INCREASE IN HEIGHT, AN ADDITIONAL TWO FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED UP TO A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 80 FEET. 50' TALL BUILDING SETBACK PROPOSED EASEMENT Pa g e 4 8 3 o f 5 0 3 PO W PO W S89°45'26"E 2657.48 N89°50'06"W 2652.43 N89°50'06"W 2652.43 S 0 ° 1 5 ' 3 4 " E 26 4 6 . 5 9 S0 ° 1 3 ' 3 8 " E 26 6 2 . 7 0 S89°46'38"E 2647.32 N 0 ° 1 1 ' 1 6 " W 5 3 1 1 . 9 3 S89°44'58"E 5311.96 2662.81 66 5 . 7 0 66 5 . 7 0 66 3 . 1 1 66 3 . 1 1 1331.40 1326.22 POST VENT PIPE RISER ABOVE GROUND PIPING SOUTH BRANCH VERMILLION RIV E R SOUTH B R A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R SOUTH B R A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R SOUTH BRANCH OF VER M I L L I O N R I V E R 9 0 0 90 5 91 0 91 5 90 5 905 910 91 0915 9 1 0 9 1 5 9 2 0 920 90 5 91 0 9 1 0 9 1 5 9 1 5 905 910 915 920 9 0 5 9 1 0 9 1 5 9 2 0 9 1 5 9 2 0 910 91 5 920 92 0 900 905 910 91 5 920 900 9 0 0 900 90 0 9 2 5 920 91 5 9 1 5 920 920 92 5 925 920 9 1 0 9 1 5 9 2 0 9 2 0 91 0 91 5 920 90 5 9 1 0 905 910 905 910 904 906 907 908 909 911 912 9 0 5 9 1 0 9 1 5 9 1 5 9 2 0 9 2 0 905 910 915 920 925 930 930 905 9 1 0 915 92 0 895 895 900 900 900 905 910 915 920 90 0 90 5 91 0 91 5 920 895 900900 900 905 9 0 5 9 1 0 9 1 5 9 2 0 9 0 0 895 90 0 905 910 915 920 90 5 910 915 92 0 9 2 0 91 0 9 1 5 9 2 0 9 0 0 897 897 89 8 898 899 901 9 0 2 896 897 898 899 906 907 90 8 90 9 903 904 90 0 90 0 900 92 1 92 1 92 2 92 2 92 2 92 3 923 9 2 3 92 3 9 0 0 905 910 915 920 925 9 0 3 90 4 9 0 6907 90 8 909 90 4 90 3 9 0 4 9 0 3 923 924 92 2 9 2 1 92 0 9 1 9 91 8 917 916 915 9 1 4 9 2 1 9 2 0 9 1 9 918 917 915 916 9 1 2 913 91 4 9 2 0 9 2 5 9 2 1 92 2 92 3 9 2 4 926 927 928 928 920 9 1 4 9 1 7 9 2 2 9 2 0 9 1 8 903 90 4 9049 0 4 90 4 898 899 90 0 90 8 924 928 928 924 924 924 924 898 894 8 9 8 897 903 908 893 892 900900 898 894896 903 921 9 2 2 92 2 91 8 919 PROPOSED BMP 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN (FLOOD ZONE AE) FRESHWATER POND FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND FRESHWATER POND FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND FRESHWATER FORESTED AND EMERGENT WETLAND PRETREATMENT BASIN PROPOSED BMP PROPOSED BMP PRETREATMENT BASIN PRETREATMENT BASIN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMENT PER DOCUMENT NO. 295196 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 07/11/2024 DRAINAGE MAP LEGEND DRAINAGE ESTIMATES 900 PROPOSED 2 Area: 72.32 AC DR A I N A G E P L A N C5 IMPERVIOUS AREA: 98.5 AC BMP FILTRATION VOLUME: 595,171 CF BMP FOOTPRINT: 248,990 SF PRETREATMENT DEAD STORAGE VOLUME: 344,316 SF PRETREATMENT FOOTPRINT: 212,140 SF BMP MAX ESTIMATED BOUNCE: 10 FT BLOCK 1, LOT 1 & 2 (NORTH PARCEL)BLOCK 2, LOT 1 (SOUTH PARCEL) IMPERVIOUS AREA: 51.1 AC BMP FILTRATION VOLUME: 188,348 CF BMP FOOTPRINT: 369,979 SF PRETREATMENT DEAD STORAGE VOLUME: 201,525 SF PRETREATMENT FOOTPRINT: 73,799 SF BMP MAX ESTIMATED BOUNCE: 5 FT EXISTING DRAINAGE AREAS PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREAS PROPOSED BMP PRETREATMENT DEAD STORAGE VOLUME BMP INFILTRATION/FILTRATION VOLUME MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING FLOW ARROW NORTH0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 300150300 600 PROPOSED CONDITIONS MAP ONSITE 3 Area: 20.08 AC DRAINAGE AREA LABEL EXISTING POND PROPOSED 1 Area: 122.36 AC OFFSITE Area: 36.92 AC OFFSITE 4 Area: 15.28 AC OFFSITE 2 Area: 4.74 AC OFFSITE 3 Area: 24.55 AC 50' TALL BUILDING SETBACK PROPOSED EASEMENT Pa g e 4 8 4 o f 5 0 3 PO W PO W PO W 24" PVCIE=895.3 24" PVC IE=895.9 RE=910.4 RE = 9 0 7 . 9 RE = 9 0 5 . 6 IE = ( D E B R I S ) RE = 9 0 7 . 9 RE=909.1 IE=(DEBRIS) 15" CMP IE=(BLOCKED) 15" CMPIE=920.0 18" CMPIE=914.0 18" CMP IE=(BLOCKED) 15" CMPIE=895.6 15" CMPIE=895.0 S89°45'26"E2657.48 S0 ° 1 3 ' 3 8 " E 26 6 2 . 7 0 S89°46'38"E2647.32 N0 ° 1 1 ' 1 6 " W 5 3 1 1 . 9 3 S89°44'58"E 5311.96 2662.81 66 5 . 7 0 66 5 . 7 0 POST VENT PIPE RISER ABOVE GROUND PIPING 220TH STREET WEST 225TH STREET WEST 224TH STREET WEST CA L H O U N C O U R T CA N T O N C O U R T CANTON CIRCLE BE R R I N G A V E N U E S F SF SF SF SF SF S F SF SF SF SF SF PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT BOUNDARY WETLAND BUFFER 50' SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF S F 9 2 0 9 2 5 92 5 92 1 921 9 2 2 922 923 923 924 92 4 9 2 6 926 927 927 921 920 918 916 914 912 910 92 0 918 919 921 92 1 92 1 9 2 2 92 2 922 900 905 910 897 897 89 8 898 898 8 9 9 8 9 9 89 9 901 902 903 904 906 907 90 8 909 911 900 89 6 897 89 8 899 901 906 908 910 912 91 4 91 6 918 920 922 9 2 3 92 4 924 90 4 90 2 0.03% 3. 7 0 % 4. 3 1 % 3.62 % 6. 7 6 % 1.3 6 % 1 . 7 3 % 1.1 6 % 4 . 3 9 % 3.52% 6.0 2 % 0.39% 3 . 2 9 % 0. 0 1 % 3.13% 4. 2 4 % 2 . 8 4 % 1.5 1 % 8.6 5 % 2.2 9 % 1.66%1 . 2 2 % 1.9 3 % 0. 2 8 % 2 . 7 4 % 2.0 1 % 2. 2 2 % 5. 2 1 % 0.00% 5 . 1 4 % 1. 8 3 % 4.2 6 % 1 . 2 0 % 0. 9 5 % 3 . 1 8 % 1 . 2 0 % 0.8 7 % 0.0 7 % 0 . 4 9 % SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 08/13/2024 PH A S E 1 E R O S I O N CO N T R O L N O R T H LO T NORTH LEGEND 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 200 100 200 400 PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED SILT FENCESF C6.0 WETLAND BUFFER 50' WETLAND EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES 1.ALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 4.WITHIN TWO WEEKS (14 DAYS) OF SITE GRADING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD, OR ROCK BASE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR MATERIALS. 5.ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY, STATE, AND WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF SILT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES DURING THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 7.ANY EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED BASINS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 8.REMOVAL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO EXISTING STREETS AND PAVED AREAS AND SHALL SWEEP ADJACENT STREETS AS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10.IF BLOWING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WATER FROM A TANK TRUCK TO ALL CONSTRUCTION AREAS. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Pa g e 4 8 5 o f 5 0 3 RE=910.4 RE = 9 0 7 . 9 RE = 9 0 5 . 6 IE = ( D E B R I S ) RE = 9 0 7 . 9 RE=909.1 IE=(DEBRIS) 15" CMP IE=(BLOCKED) 15" CMPIE=920.0 18" CMPIE=914.0 18" CMP IE=(BLOCKED) 24" CMPIE=912.2 24" CMP IE=912.0 N89°50'06"W 2652.43 N89°50'06"W 2652.43 S0 ° 1 5 ' 3 4 " E 26 4 6 . 5 9 S0 ° 1 3 ' 3 8 " E 26 6 2 . 7 0 N0 ° 1 1 ' 1 6 " W 5 3 1 1 . 9 3 S89°44'58"E 5311.96 2662.81 66 5 . 7 0 66 5 . 7 0 66 3 . 1 1 66 3 . 1 1 POST VENT PIPE RISER ABOVE GROUND PIPING SOUTH BRANCH VERMILLION RIVER SOUTH BR A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R SOUTH BR A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R 225TH STREET WEST BI S C A Y N E A V E N U E 230TH STREET WEST 224TH STREET WEST CA L H O U N C O U R T BE R R I N G A V E N U E PROJECT BOUNDARY SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F SF SF SF SF SF SF S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F SF SF S F SF SF SF SF SF SF S F S F 920 9 2 0 9 2 5 92 5 91 8 919 921 921 92 1 921 9 2 2 922 923 923 924 92 4 9 2 6 926 927 927 921 920 918 916 914 912 910 908 906 92 0 918 919 921 92 1 92 1 9 2 2 92 2 922 900 905 910 89 9 901 902 903 904 906 907 90 8 909 911 906 908 910 912 91 4 91 6 918 920 922 9 2 3 92 4 924 90 4 3.62 % 1.1 6 % 4 . 3 9 % 3.52% 6.0 2 % 0.39% 3 . 2 9 % 3.13% 4. 2 4 % 2 . 8 4 % 2.2 9 % 1.66%1 . 2 2 % 1.9 3 % 0. 2 8 % 2 . 7 4 % 2.0 1 % 2. 2 2 % 5. 2 1 % 0.00% 5 . 1 4 % 1. 8 3 % 4.2 6 % 1 . 2 0 % 6.18%4.46% 2.05 % 0. 9 5 % 3 . 1 8 % 1 . 2 0 % 0.8 7 % 0.0 7 % 0 . 4 9 % 0 . 8 1 % 0.5 1 % SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF PH A S E 1 E R O S I O N CO N T R O L S O U T H LO T 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 08/13/2024 C6.1 NORTH 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 200 100 200 400 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED SILT FENCESF EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTES 1.ALL PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 4.WITHIN TWO WEEKS (14 DAYS) OF SITE GRADING, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD, OR ROCK BASE. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR MATERIALS. 5.ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY, STATE, AND WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF SILT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES DURING THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 7.ANY EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED BASINS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 8.REMOVAL ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO EXISTING STREETS AND PAVED AREAS AND SHALL SWEEP ADJACENT STREETS AS NECESSARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10.IF BLOWING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WATER FROM A TANK TRUCK TO ALL CONSTRUCTION AREAS. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Pa g e 4 8 6 o f 5 0 3 POST VENT PIPE RISER ABOVE GROUND PIPING SOUTH BRANCH VERMILLION RIVER SOUTH BR A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R SOUTH BRANCH OF VER M I L L I O N R I V E R 220TH STREET WEST 225TH STREET WEST BI S C A Y N E A V E N U E 224TH STREET WEST CA L H O U N C O U R T CA N T O N C O U R T CANTON CIRCLE BE R R I N G A V E N U E PROPOSED SECURITY ENTRANCE & PARKING PROPOSED SECURITY ENTRANCE PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT BOUNDARY NEW PRIVATE DRIVE NEW PRIVATE DRIVE WETLAND BUFFER 50' 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK 150' BUILDING SETBACK 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWW WWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWWWWWW SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SA N SAN SA N SA N SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN CITY CONNECTION PROPOSED BMP PRETREATMENT BASIN PROPOSED BMP PROPOSED BMP PRETREATMENT BASIN PRETREATMENT BASIN RESERVED FOR FUTURE UTILITES CITY CONNECTION CITY CONNECTION CITY CONNECTION CITY CONNECTION 75' PROPOSED DRAINAGE & UTILITY, ROADWAY & TRAIL EASEMENT 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 08/13/2024 SC H E M A T I C UT I L I T Y P L A N NORTH LEGEND 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 200 100 200 400 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED FENCE BUILDING SETBACK C7 WETLAND BUFFER 50' WETLAND PROPOSED SANITARY SEWERSAN PROPOSED WATER LINEW UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1.ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2.SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3.WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241 CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 150 4" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PER ANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4.MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5.ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6.ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. 8.IN THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9.LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10.TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11.ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12.EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13.REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND/OR STATE OF MN WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18.ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. PROPOSED EASEMENT Pa g e 4 8 7 o f 5 0 3 220TH STREET WEST 225TH STREET WEST 224TH STREET WEST CA L H O U N C O U R T CA N T O N C O U R T CANTON CIRCLE BE R R I N G A V E N U E PROPOSED SECURITY ENTRANCE & PARKING PROPOSED SECURITY ENTRANCE PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT BOUNDARY NEW PRIVATE DRIVE NEW PRIVATE DRIVE WETLAND BUFFER 50' 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING PROPOSED BMP PRETREATMENT BASIN PRETREATMENT BASIN PRETREATMENT BASIN RESERVED FOR FUTURE UTILITES 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 08/13/2024 RE P R E S E N T A T I V E SI T E P L A N - 1 NORTH SITE PLAN LEGEND 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 200 100 200 400 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED FENCE BUILDING SETBACK PARCEL NUMBER 14-00500-01-012 GROSS PARCEL AREA = 6,850,710 SF (157.27 ACRES) NET PARCEL AREA = 6,605,336 SF (151.64 ACRES) ADMIN BUILDING = 35,600 SF TOTAL # DATA CENTERS = 6 TOTAL BUILDING SF SHOWN = 1,600,400 SF EX-1 LOT 1 - SITE DATA TABLE NOTES 1.THE PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. THE PURPOSE IS TO CONVEY A POTENTIAL LAYOUT THAT MAY OCCUR AND THE ANTICIPATED PRIMARY ACCESS POINT LOCATIONS. 2.THE FINAL SITE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY'S SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WILL OCCUR AS EACH LOT IS DEVELOPED. WETLAND BUFFER 50' WETLAND PROPOSED EASEMENT Pa g e 4 8 8 o f 5 0 3 SOUTH BRANCH VERMILLION RIVER SOUTH BR A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R SOUTH BR A N C H V E R M I L L I O N R I V E R SOUTH BRANCH OF VER M I L L I O N R I V E R 225TH STREET WEST BI S C A Y N E A V E N U E 230TH STREET WEST 224TH STREET WEST CA L H O U N C O U R T BE R R I N G A V E N U E PROPOSED SECURITY ENTRANCE PROPOSED SECURITY ENTRANCE & PARKING PROJECT BOUNDARY NEW PRIVATE DRIVE 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 250' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING 150' BUILDING SETBACK FOR 50' TALL BUILDING PROPOSED BMP PROPOSED BMP PRETREATMENT BASIN PRETREATMENT BASIN RESERVED FOR FUTURE UTILITES RESERVED FOR FUTURE UTILITES RE P R E S E N T A T I V E SI T E P L A N - 2 80 5 P E N N S Y L V A N I A A V E N U E , S U I T E 1 5 0 KA N S A S C I T Y , M O 6 4 1 0 5 PH O N E : 6 3 0 - 4 8 7 - 5 5 5 0 WW W . K I M L E Y - H O R N . C O M © 2 0 2 4 K I M L E Y - H O R N A N D A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . No . RE V I S I O N S BY DA T E 268636000 KHA PROJECT NO. ORIGINAL ISSUE: SHEET NUMBER DE S I G N E D B Y : SC A L E : MD K BL D CH E C K E D B Y : DR A W N B Y : AS N O T E D BL D PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N FA R M I N G T O N TE C H N O L O G Y PA R K 08/13/2024 EX-2 NORTH 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 200 100 200 400 PARCEL NUMBERS 07-00500-76-012 07-00500-76-011 GROSS PARCEL AREA = 8,082,119 SF (185.54 ACRES) NET PARCEL AREA = 5,313,896 SF (121.99 ACRES) ADMIN BUILDING = 34,100 SF TOTAL # DATA CENTERS = 6 TOTAL BUILDING SF SHOWN = 933,800 SF SITE PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED FENCE BUILDING SETBACK LOT 2 - SITE DATA TABLE NOTES 1.THE PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. THE PURPOSE IS TO CONVEY A POTENTIAL LAYOUT THAT MAY OCCUR AND THE ANTICIPATED PRIMARY ACCESS POINT LOCATIONS. 2.THE FINAL SITE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY'S SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WILL OCCUR AS EACH LOT IS DEVELOPED. PROPOSED EASEMENT Pa g e 4 8 9 o f 5 0 3 Development Standards 1. Setbacks: a. Adjacent to Residential Uses: 250-feet b. Adjacent to Non-Residential Uses: 150-feet c. From the 75’ easement dedication on the east side of Lot 1, Block 1: 175- feet d. Adjacent to Lot 2 (Water Storage Tank): 0-foot from internal property lines within the overall PUD. Applicable MUCI setbacks shall apply to property lines not adjacent to the PUD. e. Adjacent to MN225: 40-feet f. Adjacent to the southern property line of Lot 3 and the western property line of Lot 3 north to the designated floodzone: 40-feet g. Generators and mechanical equipment are exempt from the building setback requirements. 2. Natural Buffers: A natural buffer of 40 feet from all perimeter property lines, except for those listed below, is established under this PUD: a. Existing, healthy trees shall be retained in the natural buffer, to the greatest extent practicable, in accordance with Section 10-6-11 of the Farmington Municipal Code. Utilities, landscaping, and berms may be located in the natural buffer. Perimeter fencing, security gates, and guard buildings shall be located outside of the Natural Buffer. Where there are no existing trees in the natural buffer that qualify for preservation under Section 10.6.11 et.al of the Farmington Municipal Code, then stormwater features may be located in the natural buffer provided they are adequately landscaped in accordance with the applicable sections of the Farmington Municipal Code, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director. b. Exceptions: i. Adjacent to MN 225 ii. Adjacent to Lot 2: Only the eastern most property line south of the 40-foot natural buffer adjacent to MN 220th and adjacent to the southern property line outside of the 150’ setback adjacent to the western property line of Lot 1. 3. Landscaping: a. Drought tolerant, native plants shall be utilized throughout the site. b. Rock, gravel, and/or mulch may also be used as an accent material for maintenance areas directly adjacent to a building, around utility access points (i.e. manholes, control valves, and hand holes), or in mechanical areas. Page 490 of 503 c. Where parking areas are located a minimum of 300 feet from a public road or residential use, and the parking area is screened by the building location, parking lot landscaping shall not be required. However, End Islands of Parking Aisles that are visible from a public street or residential use shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 10.16.10(D)8(e) d. Berms may be allowed up to 10-feet in height from existing grade in order to incorporate more aesthetic visual features into the site. 4. Easement for future County Road: As set forth in more detail in the Farmington Technology Park Development Agreement, a 75-feet access, utility, and pedestrian easement shall be provided along the future alignment of Biscayne Ave. West adjacent to Lot 1. Private utilities may also be installed within the easement. Public utilities, access, and the public trail may not be installed until such time the easement is dedicated as ROW to the County in accordance with the terms of the Farmington Technology Park Development Agreement. 5. General Design Standards: a. Principal Building Facades will meet the following standards: i. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “principal building facades” shall include all building facades substantially visible to abutting public roads or adjacent to planned or existing residential districts. ii. Principal building facades shall avoid the use of undifferentiated surfaces by including at least two (2) of the following design elements: change in building height building step-backs, projections or recesses fenestration changes in building material, pattern, texture, color use of accent material overhangs canopies or porticos arcades variations in the roof line iii. When a building has more than one principal facade, such facades shall be consistent in their design, materials, details, and treatments. b. Screening of Building Mechanical Equipment, Critical Infrastructure and Utility Substations. Page 491 of 503 i. Ground-level mechanical equipment, substations or accessory uses (not including parking areas) that are visible from public rights-of- way and/or adjacent residential dwellings will be screened from public view using one or multiple of the following methods of screening: 1. A principal structure; 2. Existing vegetation that will remain on the Property, or new, planted vegetation (ex. evergreens or shrubs) that provides sufficient coverage to screen from public view; 3. A visually solid fence, screen wall or panel, or other visually solid screen that shall be constructed of materials that are matching or consistent in style, color and/or texture with those used in the exterior construction of the principal building. Chain link fencing with slats is not permitted to satisfy this requirement. ii. Above-ground mechanical equipment and structures will be screened from view from adjacent public streets and residential dwellings. iii. Any mechanical units placed on the rooftops of buildings shall be screened from view from adjacent public streets and residential dwellings by architectural features which are compatible with building façade architecture. The method of screening shall be provided and reviewed with the Planning Director’s review of the building elevations. The screening of roof mounted equipment shall be excluded from the overall height limitation. Rooftop equipment should be centrally located on the roof where feasible. iv. All buildings are exempt from any existing or future City requirement to install roof-mounted solar equipment. 6. Building height: Maximum building height for Principal Structures is 80 feet. However, the maximum height at the building setback line is 50 feet. For each one-foot increase in building height, the building must be stepped back two feet. a. Maximum building height for accessory structures is 50 feet. 7. Fence height: Maximum fence height of 14 feet. 8. Electric Utility Lines: a. Data centers are typically fed power from the utility’s transmission system directly to the data center site. Depending on the utility, transmission Page 492 of 503 voltage is typically 69kV or greater. Transmission lines are typically installed overhead for safety and cost effectiveness. b. Permanent distribution lines on data center campuses are typically installed underground. c. Temporary overhead power distribution lines for construction power will likely be installed above-ground. It has not been determined how construction power will be constructed or served. Temporary lines, which look like standard utility distribution lines, provide power for the construction of buildings and the support of building operations. These lines shall remain in use until the permanent underground service from the on-site substation is operational, and building construction is completed. The temporary distribution equipment may be rerouted to serve additional construction sites or removed altogether by the electric utility. d. The transition from the transmission system is a switching station/substation, which may or may not be on the data center site. The switching station / substation is an integral use associated with the data center operations. 9. Noise: a. Noise generated from the site shall meet the applicable noise ordinance requirements as established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. b. Prior to the approval of a site plan, the applicant shall provide a noise study to demonstrate that the applicable noise levels will not be exceeded. c. In addition to the foregoing, Applicant agrees to install physical sound attenuation on any mechanical equipment (including but not limited to ground supported barriers, earthen berms, mechanical screening or other attenuation techniques as specifically called out in subsequent sound studies) that is installed at a data center building located within 1,200 feet of any adjacent residential use and that is either (i) installed on the rooftop of such building or (ii) that is installed on the exterior side of such data center building and directly facing such adjacent residential uses, in each case unless a noise study demonstrates that there is no incremental noise from such mechanical equipment as a result of the foregoing installation locations. 10. Parking: 1 parking space / 1,000 sf of office use. Parking spaces are not required for designated data hall areas. Minimum parking may be modified based on a parking study provided with a site plan or building permit application, as applicable. 11. Substations shall be exempt from the design regulations of the MUCI Zoning District. Mechanical and electrical equipment will be housed in mechanical yards that are fenced and screened. a. The property may have outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment of size (not to exceed the aggregate building footprint), number, volume, and Page 493 of 503 location to sufficiently serve the buildings and be in relational proximity to the buildings. 12. Private Communication Towers are permitted up to a maximum height of 80 feet. 13. Maximum Lot Coverage of All Uses: There is no maximum lot coverage for all uses built in the designated “developable area”. Page 494 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-98 AMENDING THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES COMMONLY KNOWN AS FOUNTAIN VALLEY GOLF COURSE AND THE ANGUS PROPERTIES AND AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the properties commonly known as Fountain Valley Golf Course (PID# 14-00500-01-012) and the Angus Properties (PID#’s 07-00500-76-012 and 07-00500-76-011). The said request is as follows: • PID# 14-00500-01-012 – land use plan change from a mixture of Commercial, Low Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Park / Open Space to Mixed-Use (Commercial/Industrial) and to change the anticipated development staging from Post 2040 to 2020-2030. • PID#’s 07-00500-76-012 and 07-00500-76-011 – land use plan change from non- designated to Mixed-Use (Commercial/Industrial), adding these parcels to the 2020 MUSA, and including these parcels in the 2020-2030 development staging timeframe. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 8th day of October 2024 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission accepted public comments at the public hearing and recommended approval of the above mentioned Comprehensive Plan Amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Farmington after taking into account the recommendation of the Planning Commission hereby amends the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the properties commonly known as the Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus properties as mentioned above and authorize the submittal of the amendments to the Metropolitan Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 4th day of November 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 495 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 2024-11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE FARMINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE, REZONING THE PROPERTIES COMMONLY KNOWN AS FOUNTAIN VALLEY GOLF COURSE AND THE ANGUS PROPERTIES The City Council of the City of Farmington ordains: SECTION 1. Section 10-5-1 of the Farmington City Code is amended by rezoning the following parcels as follows: • PID#’s 07-00500-76-011 and 07-00500-76-012 (Angus properties) from A-1 (Agriculture) to MUCI (Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial) • PID# 14-00500-01-012 (Fountain Valley Golf Course) from B-1 (Highway Business), R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-2 (Low/Medium Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and P/OS (Park/Open Space) to MUCI (Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial) SECTION 2. FINDINGS. The City Council of the City of Farmington makes the following: FINDINGS 1. The proposed rezoning will result in a much needed tax base increase and diversification as data centers are taxed higher than golf courses and agricultural land. 2. The Surrounding uses are compatible with the proposed use and are varied: a. For the Angus Properties, the lands to the west, south and east the current uses are predominantly agricultural. b. For the Fountain Valley Golf Course, the border of the City is to the east with residential homes across the highway. c. For the Fountain Valley Golf Course, the land to the north is predominately agricultural. d. For the Fountain Valley Golf Course, the land to the west includes industrial uses and residential homes. 3. Water, electrical, and sewer infrastructure supports or soon support the proposed use as development occurs. 4. The Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus Properties total over 300 acres combined in size and are right on Farmington’s border. 5. There is sufficient space for the use as proposed. 6. This rezoning promotes general welfare of the City by increasing and diversifying the tax base, bringing critical services into town, offering new employment opportunities, and the proposed use is an effective use of this land. SECTION 3. The Zoning Map of the City of Farmington, adopted under Section 10-5-1 of the Farmington City Code, shall be republished to show the aforesaid zoning. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication Page 496 of 503 according to law and is subject to approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council. Passed by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 4th day of November 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 497 of 503 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2024-99 APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FARMINGTN TECHNOLOGY PARK WHEREAS, the preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development for the Farmington Technology Park is now before the Council for review and approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the 10th day of September, 2024 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice sent to surrounding property owners; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended City Council approval of the preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development at its regular meeting on September 10, 2024. WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development on November 4, 2024. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Farmington Mayor and City Council hereby approve the Farmington Technology Park preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, this 4th day of November 2024. ATTEST: ____________________________ ______________________________ Joshua Hoyt, Mayor Shirley R Buecksler, City Clerk Page 498 of 503 Development Standards 1. Setbacks: a. Adjacent to Residential Uses: 250-feet b. Adjacent to Non-Residential Uses: 150-feet c. From the 75’ easement dedication on the east side of Lot 1, Block 1: 175- feet d. Adjacent to Lot 2 (Water Storage Tank): 0-foot from internal property lines within the overall PUD. Applicable MUCI setbacks shall apply to property lines not adjacent to the PUD. e. Adjacent to MN225: 40-feet f. Adjacent to the southern property line of Lot 3 and the western property line of Lot 3 north to the designated floodzone: 40-feet g. Generators and mechanical equipment are exempt from the building setback requirements. 2. Natural Buffers: A natural buffer of 40 feet from all perimeter property lines, except for those listed below, is established under this PUD: a. Existing, healthy trees shall be retained in the natural buffer, to the greatest extent practicable, in accordance with Section 10-6-11 of the Farmington Municipal Code. Utilities, landscaping, and berms may be located in the natural buffer. Perimeter fencing, security gates, and guard buildings shall be located outside of the Natural Buffer. Where there are no existing trees in the natural buffer that qualify for preservation under Section 10.6.11 et.al of the Farmington Municipal Code, then stormwater features may be located in the natural buffer provided they are adequately landscaped in accordance with the applicable sections of the Farmington Municipal Code, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director. b. Exceptions: i. Adjacent to MN 225 ii. Adjacent to Lot 2: Only the eastern most property line south of the 40-foot natural buffer adjacent to MN 220th and adjacent to the southern property line outside of the 150’ setback adjacent to the western property line of Lot 1. 3. Landscaping: In addition to the applicable landscaping standard set forth in Section 10.6.10 of the Farmington City Code, the following additional landscaping standards shall apply: a. Drought tolerant, native plants shall be utilized throughout the site. b. Rock, gravel, and/or mulch may also be used as an accent material for maintenance areas directly adjacent to a building, around utility access Page 499 of 503 points (i.e. manholes, control valves, and hand holes), or in mechanical areas. c. Where parking areas are located a minimum of 300 feet from a public road or residential use, and the parking area is screened by the building location, parking lot landscaping shall not be required. However, End Islands of Parking Aisles that are visible from a public street or residential use shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 10.16.10(D)8(e) d. Berms are required to be constructed where development occurs adjacent to residential uses. Berms may be allowed up to 10-feet in height from existing grade in order to incorporate more aesthetic visual features into the site. Berms over ten-feet in height may be allowed subject to administrative site plan review and approval by the City. Additionally, landscaping may be installed on the berms and walls where feasible. d.e. Any berms approved with a site plan for a data center building shall be constructed prior to the first foundation inspection for any building included in the associated approved site plan. Landscaping associated with the berm shall be installed during the Minnesota growing season. If construction of berms are completed outside of the Minnesota growing season, then all required landscaping shall be installed by June 1 of the subsequent growing season. 4. Easement for future County Road: As set forth in more detail in the Farmington Technology Park Development Agreement, a 75-feet access, utility, and pedestrian easement shall be provided along the future alignment of Biscayne Ave. West adjacent to Lot 1. Private utilities may also be installed within the easement. Public utilities, access, and the public trail may not be installed until such time the easement is dedicated as ROW to the County in accordance with the terms of the Farmington Technology Park Development Agreement. 5. General Design Standards: a. Principal Building Facades will meet the following standards: i. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “principal building facades” shall include all building facades substantially visible to abutting public roads or adjacent to planned or existing residential districts. ii. Principal building facades shall avoid the use of undifferentiated surfaces by including at least two (2) of the following design elements: change in building height building step-backs, projections or recesses fenestration Page 500 of 503 changes in building material, pattern, texture, color use of accent material overhangs canopies or porticos arcades variations in the roof line iii. When a building has more than one principal facade, such facades shall be consistent in their design, materials, details, and treatments. b. Screening of Building Mechanical Equipment and Critical Infrastructure i. Ground-level mechanical equipment or accessory uses (not including parking areas) that are visible from public rights-of-way and/or adjacent residential dwellings will be screened from public view using one or multiple of the following methods of screening: 1. A principal structure; 2. Existing vegetation that will remain on the Property, or new, planted vegetation (ex. evergreens or shrubs) that fully screens the equipment from provides sufficient coverage to screen from public view; 3. A visually solid fence, screen wall or panel, or other visually solid screen that shall be constructed of materials that are matching or consistent in style, color and/or texture with those used in the exterior construction of the principal building. Chain link fencing with slats is not permitted to satisfy this requirement. ii. Above-ground mechanical equipment and structures will be screened from view from adjacent public streets and residential dwellings. iii. Any mechanical units placed on the rooftops of buildings shall be screened from view from adjacent public streets and residential dwellings by architectural features which are compatible with building façade architecture. The method of screening shall be provided and reviewed with the Planning Director’s review of the building elevations. The screening of roof mounted equipment shall be excluded from the overall height limitation but in no instance shall exceed 80-feet. Rooftop equipment should be centrally located on the roof where feasible. iv. All buildings are exempt from any existing or future City requirement to install roof-mounted solar equipment. Page 501 of 503 6. Building height: Maximum building height for Principal Structures is 80 feet. However, the maximum height at the building setback line is 50 feet. For each one-foot increase in building height, the building must be stepped back two feet. a. Maximum building height for accessory structures is 50 feet. 7. Fence height: a. Maximum fence height of 14 feet. 7.b. In locations where the existing fence will be relocated to the property line on the west side of the project boundary, applicant shall provide adjacent property owners with the opportunity to collectively decide between three choices of fence material and design to include, but not be limited to: wood, chain link, or metal. Applicant shall also replace any damaged landscaping resulting from the fence replacement. 8. Electric Utility Lines: a. Data centers are typically fed power from the utility’s transmission system directly to the data center site. Depending on the utility, transmission voltage is typically 69kV or greater. Transmission lines are typically installed overhead for safety and cost effectiveness. b. Permanent distribution lines on data center campuses are typically installed underground. c. Temporary overhead power distribution lines for construction power will likely be installed above-ground. It has not been determined how construction power will be constructed or served. Temporary lines, which look like standard utility distribution lines, provide power for the construction of buildings and the support of building operations. These lines shall remain in use until the permanent underground service from the on-site substation is operational, and building construction is completed. The temporary distribution equipment may be rerouted to serve additional construction sites or removed altogether by the electric utility. d. The transition from the transmission system is a switching station/substation, which may or may not be on the data center site. The switching station / substation is an integral use associated with the data center operations. 9. Noise: a. Noise generated from the site shall meet the applicable noise ordinance requirements as established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. b. Prior to the approval of a site plan, the applicant shall provide a noise study to demonstrate that the applicable noise levels will not be exceeded. At the time of site plan and building permit review, additional noise attenuation measures to ensure that MPCA noise rules are adhered to may be required. Page 502 of 503 c. In addition to the foregoing, Applicant agrees to install physical sound attenuation on any mechanical equipment (including but not limited to ground supported barriers, earthen berms, mechanical screening or other attenuation techniques as specifically called out in subsequent sound studies) that is installed at a data center building located within 1,200 feet of any adjacent residential use and that is either (i) installed on the rooftop of such building or (ii) that is installed on the exterior side of such data center building and directly facing such adjacent residential uses, in each case unless a noise study demonstrates that there is no incremental noise from such mechanical equipment as a result of the foregoing installation locations. 10. Parking: 1 parking space / 1,000 sf of office use. Parking spaces are not required for designated data hall areas. Minimum parking may be modified based on a parking study provided with a site plan or building permit application, as applicable. 11. Substations shall be exempt from the design regulations of the MUCI Zoning District. Mechanical and electrical equipment will be housed in mechanical yards that are fenced and screened. a. The property may have outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment of size (not to exceed the aggregate building footprint), number, volume, and location to sufficiently serve the buildings and be in relational proximity to the buildings. 12. Private Communication Towers are permitted up to a maximum height of 80 feet and are subject to the building setback requirements. 13. Maximum Lot Coverage of All Uses: There is no maximum lot coverage for all uses built in the designated “developable area”. Lighting. The maximum height of pole-mounted exterior lighting shall be eighteen feet (18'). All exterior lighting fixtures, including pole-mounted exterior lighting and building-mounted exterior lighting, shall be fully shielded with house side shields installed. Lighting shall not exceed .50 foot-candles at the interior edge of the Natural Buffer Area, as applicable. Lighting that is exempt from these requirements includes temporary lighting and lighting provided for emergency or safety and security purposes as required by: the Building Code, Electrical Code, or otherwise within the City Code. Signage related to the authorized uses shall not be illuminated. The uplighting of buildings is prohibited. The maximum height of any building-mounted exterior light fixture shall be 35 feet in height, with the exception of motion-activated security lighting. Page 503 of 503